digital2k
09-09 04:04 PM
Admins/ Mods,
Please send an email from 'admin to registered users'.
Thank You
thanks to digital, here's an email template if you need.
---------------------
PLEASE SPREAD THIS MESSAGE AND CALL
Dear Friends and well wishers,
Please take a minute and Your call today can help half million people ( Talented, Legal immigrants ) in waiting ...
BACKGROUND & TALKING POINTS
HR5882 was sponsored by Congresswoman Lofgren and Congressman Sensenbrenner. This bill recaptures all the unused visa numbers that have been lost since 1992 due to processing delays in Employment based category and Family category. It is estimated that 216000 green cards will be recaptured which would help to eleviate the employment based backlogs.
Please use the instructions provided below to make the phone calls.
(1) Call the congressman/woman office and request to speak with the aide who handles Legislative and Immigration matters
(2) If they are not available leave a VM for them -
"I would like Representative "Representative Name" to support HR 5882, bill to recapture the green cards lost due to processing and bureaucratic delays. As you may already know that this is a bi-partisan bill with wide bipartisan support in the house and will help improve American competitiveness & reduce the back logs associated with USCIS. This bill is non controversial measures that will help US to stay competitive with a highly educated and skilled work force and address family based backlogs also."
To All congress-critters:
In a nutshell, this bill allows USCIS to manage their workflow more effectively, which provides better customer service, and will eventually lead to better turn-around times.
Pls inform Majority Members Democrats: More people will be able to get their citizenship in reasonable times.
Member Name DC Phone
Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL) 202-225-8203
Howard L. Berman (D-CA) 202-225-4695
Maxine Waters (D-CA) 202-225-2201
Bill Delahunt (D-MA) 202-225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-MN) 202-225-4755
Anthony Weiner (D-NY) 202-225-6616
Please inform Minority Members Republicans: Companies will be able to attract more talent which improves economic performance."
Member Name DC Phone
Steve King (R-IA) [Ranking Member] 202-225-4426
Elton Gallegly (R-CA) 202-225-5811
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) 202-225-5431
Dan Lungren (R-CA) 202-225-5716
J. Randy Forbes (R-VA) 202-225-6365
Louie Gohmert (R-TX) 202-225-3035
(3) As usual Do NOT get into the CIR issue or illegal Immigration. If the aide is confusing with CIR or illegal immigration, just tell them that these are legal immigration bills.
(4) If the aide asks whether you belong to the district or not, tell them NO if you don't. Mention to them that you already spoke with your representative and would like the congressman/congresswoman support.
Community of half million will appreciate and bless you for your efforts...
Thank You
House Judiciary Committee Members
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-4236
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001
More info :
Please take a minute and review the list of Judiciary members http://judiciary.house.gov/about/members.html. If you, your friends, or your
family have any district-based connection with any of them, please reach out to these members (phone, email, fax, etc), let them know how important it is to get the bill passed this month and urge them to vote YEA on the bill. Constituent interest/support from key individuals, health care providers, recruiters and other organizations is critical at this stage.
It will be great be to have major support from House Judiciary Committee http://judiciary.house.gov/about/members.html on Wednesday, September 10, 2008. In these economic and crucial times for our country...
If the HJC successfully passes the measure it will allow the full House to act on HR 5924, giving half million talented legal immigrants a ray of hope for action in 2008. Sure a very good step for USA.
The House Judiciary Committee intends to markup HR 5924, the Emergency Nursing Supply Relief Act, on Wednesday, September 10. Several other measures will also be marked up, including HR 5882, Congresswoman Lofgren's recapture legislation, HR 6020 (military), and HR 5950 (medical care for immigration detainees).
Please send an email from 'admin to registered users'.
Thank You
thanks to digital, here's an email template if you need.
---------------------
PLEASE SPREAD THIS MESSAGE AND CALL
Dear Friends and well wishers,
Please take a minute and Your call today can help half million people ( Talented, Legal immigrants ) in waiting ...
BACKGROUND & TALKING POINTS
HR5882 was sponsored by Congresswoman Lofgren and Congressman Sensenbrenner. This bill recaptures all the unused visa numbers that have been lost since 1992 due to processing delays in Employment based category and Family category. It is estimated that 216000 green cards will be recaptured which would help to eleviate the employment based backlogs.
Please use the instructions provided below to make the phone calls.
(1) Call the congressman/woman office and request to speak with the aide who handles Legislative and Immigration matters
(2) If they are not available leave a VM for them -
"I would like Representative "Representative Name" to support HR 5882, bill to recapture the green cards lost due to processing and bureaucratic delays. As you may already know that this is a bi-partisan bill with wide bipartisan support in the house and will help improve American competitiveness & reduce the back logs associated with USCIS. This bill is non controversial measures that will help US to stay competitive with a highly educated and skilled work force and address family based backlogs also."
To All congress-critters:
In a nutshell, this bill allows USCIS to manage their workflow more effectively, which provides better customer service, and will eventually lead to better turn-around times.
Pls inform Majority Members Democrats: More people will be able to get their citizenship in reasonable times.
Member Name DC Phone
Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL) 202-225-8203
Howard L. Berman (D-CA) 202-225-4695
Maxine Waters (D-CA) 202-225-2201
Bill Delahunt (D-MA) 202-225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-MN) 202-225-4755
Anthony Weiner (D-NY) 202-225-6616
Please inform Minority Members Republicans: Companies will be able to attract more talent which improves economic performance."
Member Name DC Phone
Steve King (R-IA) [Ranking Member] 202-225-4426
Elton Gallegly (R-CA) 202-225-5811
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) 202-225-5431
Dan Lungren (R-CA) 202-225-5716
J. Randy Forbes (R-VA) 202-225-6365
Louie Gohmert (R-TX) 202-225-3035
(3) As usual Do NOT get into the CIR issue or illegal Immigration. If the aide is confusing with CIR or illegal immigration, just tell them that these are legal immigration bills.
(4) If the aide asks whether you belong to the district or not, tell them NO if you don't. Mention to them that you already spoke with your representative and would like the congressman/congresswoman support.
Community of half million will appreciate and bless you for your efforts...
Thank You
House Judiciary Committee Members
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-4236
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001
More info :
Please take a minute and review the list of Judiciary members http://judiciary.house.gov/about/members.html. If you, your friends, or your
family have any district-based connection with any of them, please reach out to these members (phone, email, fax, etc), let them know how important it is to get the bill passed this month and urge them to vote YEA on the bill. Constituent interest/support from key individuals, health care providers, recruiters and other organizations is critical at this stage.
It will be great be to have major support from House Judiciary Committee http://judiciary.house.gov/about/members.html on Wednesday, September 10, 2008. In these economic and crucial times for our country...
If the HJC successfully passes the measure it will allow the full House to act on HR 5924, giving half million talented legal immigrants a ray of hope for action in 2008. Sure a very good step for USA.
The House Judiciary Committee intends to markup HR 5924, the Emergency Nursing Supply Relief Act, on Wednesday, September 10. Several other measures will also be marked up, including HR 5882, Congresswoman Lofgren's recapture legislation, HR 6020 (military), and HR 5950 (medical care for immigration detainees).
wallpaper Sarah Palin on the cover
stillhopefull
09-16 12:11 PM
Haven't been on the site for a couple of days and just saw this effort. I am gladly supporting it and am calling Republicans right now.
chanduv23
06-18 11:00 AM
I am not on L1, neither do I work in the kind of an assignment which will come under the radar due to this - but have many friends on L1. Hence I think I may have a slightly more balanced and perhaps somewhat sobering POV on this.
Since I have many friends on L1 - I know pretty well how they are abused by their employers. Just the fact that you cant quit the employer enables some forms of abuse so subtle that they will not stand in any court of law. So I hope for the sake of people on L1, and to uphold the rule of law - that this abuse stops. If it does - their employers would be forced to bring them in H1 - which is far less prone to abuse due to the portability.
However, the current "run to the DOL/ICE" approach that you guys are taking may have repurcussions well beyond you had bargained for. Think of it from the POV of a client manager (lets take the example of, say, a goldman manager). He has his hands full of sucking up to his boss, playing the internal politics and in his spare time doing some work. 99% of them (even those who actually immigrated themselves) have no appetite to get into the details of immigration law. So, as soon as there is a backlash on this - their immediate response would be to take the safest route out and require Citizenship/GC for all positions.
As soon as that wave starts - many of us are going to get burnt. Many of us who have EAD, including yours truely, would probably be able to sneak through without too much of an issue (since it is illegal to discriminate against EADs) - however, many others who are not so fortunate would probably not fare so well. Most probably what will happen is that as soon as a recruiter sees brown skin and hears some trace of an accent - alerm bells would go off in the mind to check if this guy is GC holder or a citizen.
The enabler of the L1 abuse is the non-portability of these visas. We cant do much about that in the current environment. But going all gung ho in terms of enforcement right now -when there is a recession in full swing - may not be in the best interest of any of us.
The issue is that a lot of people on L1 come to US with an intent to *immigrate* permanantly and are not aware of the complexity inthe law. They think that they can wait it out by staying with their employer till the GC comes and thus are subject to exploitation.
So many people on l1 actually look for h1b jobs and move on towards working towards their citizenship.
While everyone want to immigrate to the US - which is the case with everyone - one also has to understand the law and work through the law - it is hard - but believe me folks - it is rewarding too.
Since I have many friends on L1 - I know pretty well how they are abused by their employers. Just the fact that you cant quit the employer enables some forms of abuse so subtle that they will not stand in any court of law. So I hope for the sake of people on L1, and to uphold the rule of law - that this abuse stops. If it does - their employers would be forced to bring them in H1 - which is far less prone to abuse due to the portability.
However, the current "run to the DOL/ICE" approach that you guys are taking may have repurcussions well beyond you had bargained for. Think of it from the POV of a client manager (lets take the example of, say, a goldman manager). He has his hands full of sucking up to his boss, playing the internal politics and in his spare time doing some work. 99% of them (even those who actually immigrated themselves) have no appetite to get into the details of immigration law. So, as soon as there is a backlash on this - their immediate response would be to take the safest route out and require Citizenship/GC for all positions.
As soon as that wave starts - many of us are going to get burnt. Many of us who have EAD, including yours truely, would probably be able to sneak through without too much of an issue (since it is illegal to discriminate against EADs) - however, many others who are not so fortunate would probably not fare so well. Most probably what will happen is that as soon as a recruiter sees brown skin and hears some trace of an accent - alerm bells would go off in the mind to check if this guy is GC holder or a citizen.
The enabler of the L1 abuse is the non-portability of these visas. We cant do much about that in the current environment. But going all gung ho in terms of enforcement right now -when there is a recession in full swing - may not be in the best interest of any of us.
The issue is that a lot of people on L1 come to US with an intent to *immigrate* permanantly and are not aware of the complexity inthe law. They think that they can wait it out by staying with their employer till the GC comes and thus are subject to exploitation.
So many people on l1 actually look for h1b jobs and move on towards working towards their citizenship.
While everyone want to immigrate to the US - which is the case with everyone - one also has to understand the law and work through the law - it is hard - but believe me folks - it is rewarding too.
2011 of Palin#39;s Newsweek issue.
gcsomeday
08-22 10:40 AM
Like others have pointed out, it looks like that the numbers are being allocated in a different way from before. Does any one know of any article or discussion by a real attorney or some expert on what is going on?
USCIS may be using divide and silence tactics. One can already see the impact of EB2 being as good as current. They probably liked what they saw and are setting up to move back EB3 much more. At this rate EB3 will crawl to death. People will try to jump into EB2 and realignments/adjustments automatically will take place.All good for USCIS.
But, going back to my original question, what are the legal experts saying? Can any legal entity or any type of action force USCIS to explain what the heck is going on?
USCIS may be using divide and silence tactics. One can already see the impact of EB2 being as good as current. They probably liked what they saw and are setting up to move back EB3 much more. At this rate EB3 will crawl to death. People will try to jump into EB2 and realignments/adjustments automatically will take place.All good for USCIS.
But, going back to my original question, what are the legal experts saying? Can any legal entity or any type of action force USCIS to explain what the heck is going on?
more...
whitecollarslave
03-25 03:24 PM
Here is the text that is in the I-9 Form:
"Anti-Discrimination Notice. It is illegal to discriminate against any individual (other than an alien not authorized to work in the U.S.) in hiring, discharging, or recruiting or referring for a fee because of that individual's national origin or citizenship status. It is illegal to discriminate against work eligible individuals. Employers CANNOT specify which document(s) they will accept from an employee. The refusal to hire an individual because the documents presented have a future expiration date may also constitute illegal discrimination."
"Anti-Discrimination Notice. It is illegal to discriminate against any individual (other than an alien not authorized to work in the U.S.) in hiring, discharging, or recruiting or referring for a fee because of that individual's national origin or citizenship status. It is illegal to discriminate against work eligible individuals. Employers CANNOT specify which document(s) they will accept from an employee. The refusal to hire an individual because the documents presented have a future expiration date may also constitute illegal discrimination."
dwhuser
10-09 07:25 PM
B+ve,
cases that doesn't get approved together in a family takes longer...
SoP
Why do you think so...coz I'm in that state. My spouse who is the primary applicant got the card and my application is still in review ???
cases that doesn't get approved together in a family takes longer...
SoP
Why do you think so...coz I'm in that state. My spouse who is the primary applicant got the card and my application is still in review ???
more...
485Mbe4001
08-21 01:05 AM
You can dissect it a million ways from here to sunday, the fact of the matter is that EB 3 as a whole and E3 I&C in particular are messed up big time. We cannot sit twiddling our thumbs while we wait, most EB3s have supported most of the action items. What is wrong in exploring different options. we are not obstructing anybodys efforts. Vertical allocation or horizontal allocation doesnt matter, what matters for most is that there should be consistency in actions. They keep changing the rules every couple of months. if we know the number of people stuck in each category per year/per country we can come to our own conclusions and decide if we want to stay or go. There are greener pastures everywhere. Every year our lawyer tells us that its a matter of 12-18 months and you keep waiting...the only reason is that...we have been waiting so long, lets wait a couple more and see. i know some will immediately give comments like, 'leave sooner, one less family in the queue'..or..'port to EB 2 you ##$@'...to them i say i hope you are fortunate enough to avoid getting trapped in a situation like us.
2010 Sarah Palin on the cover
gc28262
06-13 01:25 PM
gc26...., It seems that you have missed the point again. Any logical person will have the capability to comprehend that this thread is against visa abuse in L1 category.. If you still didn't get it, objective is to explore the options to report abuse of L1. Benefits are: genuine people still get the opportunity, reduce over supply in market, not bring wages down etc.
Its that simple. If you can give me 1 good reason to not bring this issue up, I can definitely discuss the issue. But, stop giving me this crap about raising voice and being right...
Totally, non baseless argument by you and Ganguteli...
I never said raising this issue is illegal. BTW I was not replying to "l1fraud". My comment was directed at "dilipcr" who is of the opinion that Grassley's bill is good and IV core and the forum should support it so that he can have a secure job.
BTW is l1fraud or others raising this issue out of love for law ? no way. That was my point.
Its that simple. If you can give me 1 good reason to not bring this issue up, I can definitely discuss the issue. But, stop giving me this crap about raising voice and being right...
Totally, non baseless argument by you and Ganguteli...
I never said raising this issue is illegal. BTW I was not replying to "l1fraud". My comment was directed at "dilipcr" who is of the opinion that Grassley's bill is good and IV core and the forum should support it so that he can have a secure job.
BTW is l1fraud or others raising this issue out of love for law ? no way. That was my point.
more...
bayarea07
09-12 09:04 PM
Hello all,
Will it make sense to put the posters for this campaigns in local grocery stores and mandirs over the weekend, so as to create more awareness.
Will it make sense to put the posters for this campaigns in local grocery stores and mandirs over the weekend, so as to create more awareness.
hair Palin, as noted
singhv_1980
01-28 05:49 PM
I am not too sure of this. Let me try and find out this info.
more...
Hewa
06-29 02:11 PM
If USCIS mail room is closed fedex will probably re-attempt to deliver the next business day.
Guys, Are we sure that Fedex will not deliver on saturday or sunday, what will happen if they deliver, nobody will be at USCIS to accept right, so it will still be opened only on monday ?
Guys, Are we sure that Fedex will not deliver on saturday or sunday, what will happen if they deliver, nobody will be at USCIS to accept right, so it will still be opened only on monday ?
hot hot Newsweek magazine cover
gst76
02-25 03:27 PM
Oh..i see the phone number now..oops
more...
house Townhall Magazine Cover Story:
permfiling
12-15 04:42 PM
NSC sent me a response that my GC got lost in mail as I raised a SR for card. My wife got CPO but I got a letter from USCIS NSC that my card was sent on the same day my I-485 approval notice was sent which I think is some mix up on USCIS and to file I-90 . I got all letters from USCIS but not this one so I called customer service and talked to 2nd level IO who went through my case and said card was never created. She will raise a new SR for that which was on 10/12/2010
Do you guys recommend to send emails to NSC followup?
Do you guys recommend to send emails to NSC followup?
tattoo Rate this magazine cover
godbless
01-19 02:57 PM
This is what he did. He attached the new I 94 that I got at the POE and which shows my status as Parole till 01/22/2007. He has however sent the old h1 approval notice as well showing my h1 valid till 06/01/2007. He ia rushing my h1 ext application so that it reaches the USCIS office on 01/22/2007 the day my parole expires. This system is really confusing dude!!!
more...
pictures “Palin on Newsweek cover.”
iv_only_hope
01-14 09:40 PM
EB3 ROW is also affected greatly. I am sure they would also be involved in this.
dresses Sarah Palin, Miss Wasilla,
dhesha
06-27 03:45 PM
Can anyone answer this question please?
In I-485, when we enter I-94 information, I am not sure which date to use in the valid field.
The date on my white EAD card expired already. I have a new I-797 which is valid until 2010. My guess is I should enter this date. Can any one please confirm?
Thanks a lot!
Can somebody answer this....
In I-485, when we enter I-94 information, I am not sure which date to use in the valid field.
The date on my white EAD card expired already. I have a new I-797 which is valid until 2010. My guess is I should enter this date. Can any one please confirm?
Thanks a lot!
Can somebody answer this....
more...
makeup Snubbed: Sarah Palin Left Off
admin
01-25 08:33 AM
AILA has created this document. We will have to make sure that our clauses are not removed from these bills like what happened at S1932.
http://www.shusterman.com/pdf/immreform106.pdf
http://www.shusterman.com/pdf/immreform106.pdf
girlfriend Palin, the Newsweek cover
pankaj_singal
08-14 08:23 AM
Finally Got Email with GOLDEN WORDS.CARD is Under PRODUCTION.
GOddluck For all of You!
Kumarm: what was your notice date?
Thanks.
GOddluck For all of You!
Kumarm: what was your notice date?
Thanks.
hairstyles image of magazine cover is
desi3933
06-16 03:50 PM
yes it is(both about work and supervision), read the pdf.
The L-1 Reform Act amends previous legislation by addressing the issue of “outsourcing.” L-1B temporary workers can no longer work primarily at a worksite other than their petitioning employer if the work will be controlled and supervised by a different employer or if the offsite arrangement is essentially to provide labor for hire, rather than service related to the specialized knowledge of the petitioning employer. This limitation will apply to all L-1B petitions filed with USCIS on or after June 6, 2005. This includes extensions and amendments involving individuals currently in L-1 status.
as IV community we must be against these violations. We must support only the compliance L1B.
I stand corrected.
Thanks for this, Simple1. I will get more details on this from my friends from legal area.
Somehow, it seems that this line, if the offsite arrangement is essentially to provide labor for hire, could have some escape route.
Thanks again. (Green from me)
The L-1 Reform Act amends previous legislation by addressing the issue of “outsourcing.” L-1B temporary workers can no longer work primarily at a worksite other than their petitioning employer if the work will be controlled and supervised by a different employer or if the offsite arrangement is essentially to provide labor for hire, rather than service related to the specialized knowledge of the petitioning employer. This limitation will apply to all L-1B petitions filed with USCIS on or after June 6, 2005. This includes extensions and amendments involving individuals currently in L-1 status.
as IV community we must be against these violations. We must support only the compliance L1B.
I stand corrected.
Thanks for this, Simple1. I will get more details on this from my friends from legal area.
Somehow, it seems that this line, if the offsite arrangement is essentially to provide labor for hire, could have some escape route.
Thanks again. (Green from me)
InTheMoment
08-04 09:21 PM
Very relevant info regarding FBI namecheck:
http://immigrationportal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16343&d=1179435102
Relevant part below:
Testimony of Michael Cannon,
Section Chief
National Name Check Program Section
Records Management Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Feb 9th, 2006, US District Court
Southern District of Florida
(1) 1 am currently the Section Chief of the National Name Check Program Section ("NNCPS"), formerly pa rt of the Record/Information Dissemination Section ("RIDS"), Records Management Division ("RMD"), at the Federal Bureau of Investigation Headqua rters ("FBIHQ")
in Washington , D.C. I have held this position since March 7, 2005 . This declaration supplements my January 30, 2006 declaration previously submitted in this ma tter and is intended to provide further information in accordance with the order issued in the above captioned case
on February 9, 2006 by the Honorable United States Dist rict Judge Ursula Ungaro-Henagcs .
(2) This Honorable Court is seeking additional information on the FBI' s name check process, including the amount of time, on average, required to complete a name check requiring a secondary manual search; the average time required to retrieve and review an FBI record for
possible derogatory information ; and why it took three years to complete the plaintiffs name check.
(3) The amount of time, on average , required to complete a name check requiring a secondary manual search varies from case to case. Because there is a backlog of cases currently pending, it is difficult to compute an overall average. As mentioned in my January 30, 2006
declaration, approximately 68% of the name checks submitted by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) are electronically returned to USCIS Headquarters as having "No Record" within 48 hours, with a secondary manual search usually identifying an additional 22% of the requests as having a "No Record," for an overall 90% "No Record " response rate . The additional 22% identified as having a "No Record" are returned to USCIS Headquarters within 30 - 60 days of the date of their original submission. As mentioned in my
January 30, 2006 declaration, the remaining 10% are identified as possibly being the subject of an FBI record, which requires the retrieval and review of the record .
(4) Many times, the delay associated with the processing of the remaining 10% is not so much the actual time it takes to process a name check, but the time it takes for an analyst to get to the name check request in order to process it. This is due to the constant volume of name
checks submitted by USCIS, in addition to the FBI's other customers, combined with the FBI's current work on processing the residual name checks from the 2 .7 million name check requests submitted by USCIS in November 2002, as compared to the National Name Check Program's
(NNCP's) limited resources. So far this fiscal year, the NNCP has received a total average of over 62,400 name checks per week, with over 27,700 coming from USCIS on a weekly basis .
(5) The average time required to retrieve and review an FBI record for possible derogatory information is case specific, it depends on the number of files an analyst must obtain (which is dictated by the number of "hits" on a name), the location and availability of those files, and the amount of information contained in a file . If a file is located at the Alexandria Records Center located in Alexandria, Virginia, an analyst will be able to obtain a file within a matter of days . If a file is located in a field office or other FBI location, the applicable information must be requested from that location. 'here are over 265 different FBI locations that could house information pertinent to a name check request, If a file is electronically available, an analyst will have immediate access to a file. Additionally, once an analyst receives the file, or the pertinent information contained in a file, the analyst must review it for possible derogatory information . The length of time this takes depends on the amount of information in a file and its complexity.
(6)The name check request for the plaintiff Maria Trujillos was submitted by USCIS 28 on March 25, 2003 . The timing was such that the submission of the plaintiffs name check request immediately followed the submission of the 2 .7 million names resubmitted by USCIS November 2002 , which unfortunately delayed NNCP' s ability to immediately address the plaintiffs name check request. Plaintiffs name check could not be immediately addressed because the submission of the 2.7 million name checks further depleted NNCP's ability to quickly address its current workload at that time , in addition to hindering NNCP's ability to address future submissions, which included the plaintiff s name check . This, combined with the factors outlined in paragraphs (3) - (5) above, contributed to the time it took to complete the plaintiffs name check .
http://immigrationportal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16343&d=1179435102
Relevant part below:
Testimony of Michael Cannon,
Section Chief
National Name Check Program Section
Records Management Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Feb 9th, 2006, US District Court
Southern District of Florida
(1) 1 am currently the Section Chief of the National Name Check Program Section ("NNCPS"), formerly pa rt of the Record/Information Dissemination Section ("RIDS"), Records Management Division ("RMD"), at the Federal Bureau of Investigation Headqua rters ("FBIHQ")
in Washington , D.C. I have held this position since March 7, 2005 . This declaration supplements my January 30, 2006 declaration previously submitted in this ma tter and is intended to provide further information in accordance with the order issued in the above captioned case
on February 9, 2006 by the Honorable United States Dist rict Judge Ursula Ungaro-Henagcs .
(2) This Honorable Court is seeking additional information on the FBI' s name check process, including the amount of time, on average, required to complete a name check requiring a secondary manual search; the average time required to retrieve and review an FBI record for
possible derogatory information ; and why it took three years to complete the plaintiffs name check.
(3) The amount of time, on average , required to complete a name check requiring a secondary manual search varies from case to case. Because there is a backlog of cases currently pending, it is difficult to compute an overall average. As mentioned in my January 30, 2006
declaration, approximately 68% of the name checks submitted by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) are electronically returned to USCIS Headquarters as having "No Record" within 48 hours, with a secondary manual search usually identifying an additional 22% of the requests as having a "No Record," for an overall 90% "No Record " response rate . The additional 22% identified as having a "No Record" are returned to USCIS Headquarters within 30 - 60 days of the date of their original submission. As mentioned in my
January 30, 2006 declaration, the remaining 10% are identified as possibly being the subject of an FBI record, which requires the retrieval and review of the record .
(4) Many times, the delay associated with the processing of the remaining 10% is not so much the actual time it takes to process a name check, but the time it takes for an analyst to get to the name check request in order to process it. This is due to the constant volume of name
checks submitted by USCIS, in addition to the FBI's other customers, combined with the FBI's current work on processing the residual name checks from the 2 .7 million name check requests submitted by USCIS in November 2002, as compared to the National Name Check Program's
(NNCP's) limited resources. So far this fiscal year, the NNCP has received a total average of over 62,400 name checks per week, with over 27,700 coming from USCIS on a weekly basis .
(5) The average time required to retrieve and review an FBI record for possible derogatory information is case specific, it depends on the number of files an analyst must obtain (which is dictated by the number of "hits" on a name), the location and availability of those files, and the amount of information contained in a file . If a file is located at the Alexandria Records Center located in Alexandria, Virginia, an analyst will be able to obtain a file within a matter of days . If a file is located in a field office or other FBI location, the applicable information must be requested from that location. 'here are over 265 different FBI locations that could house information pertinent to a name check request, If a file is electronically available, an analyst will have immediate access to a file. Additionally, once an analyst receives the file, or the pertinent information contained in a file, the analyst must review it for possible derogatory information . The length of time this takes depends on the amount of information in a file and its complexity.
(6)The name check request for the plaintiff Maria Trujillos was submitted by USCIS 28 on March 25, 2003 . The timing was such that the submission of the plaintiffs name check request immediately followed the submission of the 2 .7 million names resubmitted by USCIS November 2002 , which unfortunately delayed NNCP' s ability to immediately address the plaintiffs name check request. Plaintiffs name check could not be immediately addressed because the submission of the 2.7 million name checks further depleted NNCP's ability to quickly address its current workload at that time , in addition to hindering NNCP's ability to address future submissions, which included the plaintiff s name check . This, combined with the factors outlined in paragraphs (3) - (5) above, contributed to the time it took to complete the plaintiffs name check .
krishmunn
04-01 03:12 PM
Link please..
Shusterman’s Immigration Update April 2011 | Carl Shusterman (http://shusterman.com/newsletterusimmigrationapril2011.html)
Shusterman’s Immigration Update April 2011 | Carl Shusterman (http://shusterman.com/newsletterusimmigrationapril2011.html)
No comments:
Post a Comment