QUOTE(mox @ Dec 13 2007, 02:24 PM)

Do consider, however, that it's your congressman's job to keep his/her constituents happy. So the aide has a lot of incentive to make you feel like he tried his best, but USCIS just wouldn't play ball. That makes them look good and USCIS look bad.
Not saying this is what happened, and dangit I'm not sure how I made myself out to be Defender of the USCIS, but any time I deal with a political office I always keep in mind what's in it for them. Having at one time worked on a political campaign and then been deeply disappointed by that person's actions once in office, I'm kinda jaded that way.
Well, Mox, you risk our shillelaghing (cool new verb form) you over the head with a jade statuette, thus confirming you as statuesque (ha).
The aide with whom I dealt was a regular guy, intelligent and concerned, and he lowlighted other USCIS horror stories for me just to put my case in what I realized was proper (paltry) perspective. He further expressed his wish that the Congressman (not a bad guy, despite being of the "wrong" party) would actually pay attention to his aides, who are on the daily front lines regarding the futility of dealing with USCIS. The aide said, "It will literally take an Act of Congress for anything [with USCIS] to change."
Congressional offices, like us, also cannot phone directly to the "Division." They have a particular contact-individual, who has 72 hours to reply, and what that contact says, goes. Except in truly emergency circumstances, the answers are the same as to us -- "we have it; we'll work on it [when we get around to it]; just wait."
It will be very interesting to learn whether the ACLU has any better luck. Somehow, I doubt it, given USCIS's constant theme of "go away and don't bother us."