Proposed Fee Increase PLUS VALUABLE USCIS DATA

[DA BOMB 1]

soo... is the fight over?

LOL.

There's no fighting, at least on my part. And I can't speak for the others but I doubt it was a 'fight'.

All I wanted to point out is there is - unfortunately - no LEGAL fire we can hold DOS/USCIS/DHS's feet too when it comes to processing a case. It's just a simple unfortunate fact.

It's my opinion that timelines and processing times sometimes cause a lot of us nothing but undue stress. They are, after all, just gauges.

Believe me, if there were legal recourse for this process, I would know about it. Take a look at MY timeline and you will understand where I am coming from.

And that's my story.....and I'm sticking to it. No offense meant to anyone.

By the way - here's your legal fire:

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

8 CFR Part 103

[CIS No. 2245-02 and Docket No. DHS-2004-0021]

RIN 1615-AA88

Adjustment of the Appeal and Motion Fees To Recover Full Costs

AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of

Homeland Security.

ACTION: Final rule.

Page 50955 - They alotted a portion of increased fees in 2004 to meet the Presidents 5 year goal of processing aps in 6 months or less.

[DA BOMB 1]

And I still can't figure out exactly what it is here you're fighting - or why.

This post pissed me off:

MRS BB: if you're happy going the wilful ignorance route, by all means, don't look up that document (which is written in plain, easy-to-understand language, with lovely charts, all to make sure that you John-and-Joan-Q-Publics have an understanding of the regulations which have A DIRECT BEARING ON YOUR LIVES).

p.s. whatever you do: if you have a problem or a concern over the proposed fee increase, by all means DO NOT read the proposal and for heaven's sake DON'T submit any comments or criticism. Then you'd actually be proactively working to better the process or at least be involved. It's FAR more effective just to sit on the boards all day and gripe to each other or express frustration than to get out there and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

Us Q Publics have a difficult time commenting on this ####### because its NOT easy to understand. (This is where YOUR day job comes in) I thought the idea of this large increase was ####### before I read it and I think its even more ####### after reading it. I'll tell you why Im entitled to adjudication in 6 months...because the poop rolls downhill. There's a President's $540 million dollar initiative to reduce this backlog. If the USCIS doesnt do its job it wont get a piece of the pie.

The President remains committed to ensure America welcomes the contributions of immigrants. The budget continues funding for the President’s multi-year $540 million initiative enabling U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to reduce the backlog of applications and ensure a six-month processing standard for all applications by the end of 2006.

This is the reason Eduardo of the USCIS kisses ### with this message from the director statement in the USCIS Backlog Elimination Plan of 2004, " Thankfully we have the opportunity, the leadership, and the talent to make an impact. By the end of 2006, we will eliminate the application backlog and achieve six-month cycle times, and in doing so will deliver on the President's vision of "welcoming immigrants with open arms....not endless lines."

Section 451 of the Homeland and Security Act of 2002 gives authority to Ed to conduct this super plan which ended up as the Super Duper Document. The driving force behind my 6 month entitlement isnt necesarily a law (rebeccajo) its the money. (How unusual for the government huh?)

Nice - but you left out YOUR comment that was the basis for MY comments - your comments being, several times, that you didn't want to get into a funky document that was long, whatever.

And my day job doesn't endow me with the magical gift of reading comprehension. My background - not day job - may give me insight into the public policy/legislative process, but I not now, nor have I ever been and expert on immigration law or regulation. I came at this process the same way you did. The feds go out of their way - they have to - to make sure these publications are written in plain English and are as readily comprehensible as possible.

The USCIS is out of pie - presidential or otherwise. It doesn't get pie for doing its job the way the president requested - it got pie so it COULD do that job in the time requested. The basic funding mechanism of USCIS doesn't come from other federal appropriations or presidential discretionary budgeting. It comes from fees. That's why they want a fee increase, so the fees match that one-time injection of cash they got under the backlog reduction funding. You're right that what made USCIS able to meet the 6 month goal was money, but it didn't MAKE them reach the goal.

And yeah, the government needs money to operate. Duh. It always has, it always will. It is not per se wrong for needing money. Its employees need to be paid, just like any of us need to be paid by our employers. The difference? Their jobs are likely even more thankless than most of ours.

You write like a lawyer...in fact everything you say is "lawyer like". You seem almost unemotional. Anyway - I dont like getting into long complicated documents but if I'm forced to dig for myself to avoid appearing lazy or looking like I'd rather sit and gripe on a forum then so be it. Who knows the true motivation behind the USCIS or their money management practices whether what they have on paper is the truth or not...someone is whipping the slaves into adjudication super mode so the fee increase is justifiable. Its not those with the thankless jobs I blame....its Emilio.

[rebeccajo 14]

soo... is the fight over?

LOL.

There's no fighting, at least on my part. And I can't speak for the others but I doubt it was a 'fight'.

All I wanted to point out is there is - unfortunately - no LEGAL fire we can hold DOS/USCIS/DHS's feet too when it comes to processing a case. It's just a simple unfortunate fact.

It's my opinion that timelines and processing times sometimes cause a lot of us nothing but undue stress. They are, after all, just gauges.

Believe me, if there were legal recourse for this process, I would know about it. Take a look at MY timeline and you will understand where I am coming from.

And that's my story.....and I'm sticking to it. No offense meant to anyone.

By the way - here's your legal fire:

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

8 CFR Part 103

[CIS No. 2245-02 and Docket No. DHS-2004-0021]

RIN 1615-AA88

Adjustment of the Appeal and Motion Fees To Recover Full Costs

AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of

Homeland Security.

ACTION: Final rule.

Page 50955 - They alotted a portion of increased fees in 2004 to meet the Presidents 5 year goal of processing aps in 6 months or less.

Mrs. Billy Bong - With all due respect, you are again referring to the President's 5 year goal.

A very different kettle of fish compared to this:

[Title 8, Volume 1]

[Revised as of January 1, 2003]

From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access

[CITE: 8CFR335.3]

TITLE 8--ALIENS AND NATIONALITY

CHAPTER I--IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Sec. 335.3 Determination on application; continuance of examination.

(a) The Service officer shall grant the application if the applicant

has complied with all requirements for naturalization under this

chapter. A decision to grant or deny the application shall be made at

the time of the initial examination or within 120-days after the date of

the initial examination of the applicant for naturalization under

Sec. 335.2. The applicant shall be notified that the application has

been granted or denied and, if the application has been granted, of the

procedures to be followed for the administration of the

oath of allegiance pursuant to part 337 of this chapter.[/b]

The above cite is the only LAW I am aware of that tells USCIS they must perform a certain function within a certain time frame. And that is for NATURALIZATION, which is a far more favored petition (sorry to burst your bubble) than a fiance visa petition.

Now, if you would like to see how USCIS recently responded to that LAW, read their press release below - which effectively spits in the face of courts in this country.

[b]FBI Name Checks - USCIS CLARIFIES CRITERIA TO EXPEDITE FBI NAME CHECK

February 20, 2007

WASHINGTON – U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is no longer routinely requesting the FBI to expedite a name check when the only reason for the request is that a mandamus (or other federal court petition) is filed in the case.

USCIS may continue to request an expedited FBI name check if the case meets one of the other approved criteria, including:

1. Military deployment,

2. Age-out cases not covered under the Child Status Protection Act, and applications affected by sunset provisions such as diversity visas,

3. Significant and compelling reasons, such as critical medical conditions, and

4. Loss of social security benefits or other subsistence at the discretion of the USCIS District Director.

The FBI name check is an invaluable part of the security screening process, ensuring that our immigration system is not used as a vehicle to harm our nation or its citizens. USCIS also requests an FBI name check to screen out people who seek immigration benefits improperly or fraudulently and ensure that only eligible applicants receive benefits.[/b]

The only reason I'm continuing this discourse with you is to ask you to grasp a very important point.

YOU AREN'T ENTITLED TO SQUAT WHEN IT COMES TO THE GOVERNMENT DECIDING YOUR CASE WITHIN ANY GIVEN TIMEFRAME. NOT LEGALLY.

I'm really not trying to win an argument. I'm just asking you to understand.

[DA BOMB 1]

soo... is the fight over?

LOL.

There's no fighting, at least on my part. And I can't speak for the others but I doubt it was a 'fight'.

All I wanted to point out is there is - unfortunately - no LEGAL fire we can hold DOS/USCIS/DHS's feet too when it comes to processing a case. It's just a simple unfortunate fact.

It's my opinion that timelines and processing times sometimes cause a lot of us nothing but undue stress. They are, after all, just gauges.

Believe me, if there were legal recourse for this process, I would know about it. Take a look at MY timeline and you will understand where I am coming from.

And that's my story.....and I'm sticking to it. No offense meant to anyone.

By the way - here's your legal fire:

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

8 CFR Part 103

[CIS No. 2245-02 and Docket No. DHS-2004-0021]

RIN 1615-AA88

Adjustment of the Appeal and Motion Fees To Recover Full Costs

AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of

Homeland Security.

ACTION: Final rule.

Page 50955 - They alotted a portion of increased fees in 2004 to meet the Presidents 5 year goal of processing aps in 6 months or less.

Mrs. Billy Bong - With all due respect, you are again referring to the President's 5 year goal.

A very different kettle of fish compared to this:

[Title 8, Volume 1]

[Revised as of January 1, 2003]

From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access

[CITE: 8CFR335.3]

TITLE 8--ALIENS AND NATIONALITY

CHAPTER I--IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Sec. 335.3 Determination on application; continuance of examination.

(a) The Service officer shall grant the application if the applicant

has complied with all requirements for naturalization under this

chapter. A decision to grant or deny the application shall be made at

the time of the initial examination or within 120-days after the date of

the initial examination of the applicant for naturalization under

Sec. 335.2. The applicant shall be notified that the application has

been granted or denied and, if the application has been granted, of the

procedures to be followed for the administration of the

oath of allegiance pursuant to part 337 of this chapter.[/b]

The above cite is the only LAW I am aware of that tells USCIS they must perform a certain function within a certain time frame. And that is for NATURALIZATION, which is a far more favored petition (sorry to burst your bubble) than a fiance visa petition.

Now, if you would like to see how USCIS recently responded to that LAW, read their press release below - which effectively spits in the face of courts in this country.

[b]FBI Name Checks - USCIS CLARIFIES CRITERIA TO EXPEDITE FBI NAME CHECK

February 20, 2007

WASHINGTON – U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is no longer routinely requesting the FBI to expedite a name check when the only reason for the request is that a mandamus (or other federal court petition) is filed in the case.

USCIS may continue to request an expedited FBI name check if the case meets one of the other approved criteria, including:

1. Military deployment,

2. Age-out cases not covered under the Child Status Protection Act, and applications affected by sunset provisions such as diversity visas,

3. Significant and compelling reasons, such as critical medical conditions, and

4. Loss of social security benefits or other subsistence at the discretion of the USCIS District Director.

The FBI name check is an invaluable part of the security screening process, ensuring that our immigration system is not used as a vehicle to harm our nation or its citizens. USCIS also requests an FBI name check to screen out people who seek immigration benefits improperly or fraudulently and ensure that only eligible applicants receive benefits.[/b]

The only reason I'm continuing this discourse with you is to ask you to grasp a very important point.

YOU AREN'T ENTITLED TO SQUAT WHEN IT COMES TO THE GOVERNMENT DECIDING YOUR CASE WITHIN ANY GIVEN TIMEFRAME. NOT LEGALLY.

I'm really not trying to win an argument. I'm just asking you to understand.

Burst my bubble? When did I make a stink that the fiance visa out favoured naturalization? The Presidents 5 year GOAL was relevent enough to justify the increase in fees which you pay. When you want to ###### about how long your case is taking you can reference the rule that increased the fees because of the "GOAL". I understand what your POINT is. The only reason you have no idea what ground we legally have to stand on is because you've never taken your case far enough to have to refer to any of these CFRs you want me to chase down. Quit acting like the GOAL isnt relevent. It is. Its the basis for the 6 month processing date we see on the USCIS site...its the reason they feel they dont have to talk about your case until 6 months is up.....its the reason for backlog elimination reports. You think its just an imaginary number no one is held accountable for? I'll bet your ### if I went to court that 6 months would be my legal leg to stand on as this is the reason I paid the fee that I did for my service.

[jerrylee 0]

I would say if they allow accelerated processing for a higher fee, I can pretty much say that USCIS wouldn't have to worry about their operation budget.

I would pay it in a minute ...it would be cheaper than multiple trips to see her because I miss her so much and the wait is soooooooooo long

[rebeccajo 14]

I'll bet your ### if I went to court that 6 months would be my legal leg to stand on as this is the reason I paid the fee that I did for my service.

You're taking this way too personally. Let's let this be an educated exercise, if we can.

And so you will understand that I'm not just whistling here, let me say I've had legal consulatation regarding my husband's case, so I'm fully aware of the remedies available to me.

But, I did fail to connect the dots in my explanation. The recent press release refers to an expedite of the FBI namecheck, which is a part of Naturalization (AOS also). FBI namecheck is the normal reason for a Natz application being delayed beyond 120 days. Indeed there are petitioners for Natz that have been held in the process for 5 or more years.

What the press release says, in effect, is that USCIS will no longer request the FBI expedite a namecheck IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW. A granted Writ of Mandamus is an order from a court DEMANDING that the defendant comply. In the past, USCIS would normally expedite a namecheck upon the filing of a Writ - they did not wait for the judge to rule as they know what the law is. Now they are saying they will not only IGNORE the filing, but they will ask for the Writ to be dismissed.

If USCIS feels that way about an actual law which tells them when they must complete a task, just how do you think they will feel about your 'legal leg' for 6 months processing that is, at this point, merely a targeted goal?

Yes, I will happily bet my a$$ that should you go to court, you haven't a legal leg to stand on.

I would say if they allow accelerated processing for a higher fee, I can pretty much say that USCIS wouldn't have to worry about their operation budget.

consolemaster, for once, I gotta agree with you. If family based petitions could be expedited by the simple payment of a higher fee, DHS coffers would be full.

Edited March 23, 2007 by rebeccajo

[DA BOMB 1]

I'll bet your ### if I went to court that 6 months would be my legal leg to stand on as this is the reason I paid the fee that I did for my service.

You're taking this way too personally. Let's let this be an educated exercise, if we can.

And so you will understand that I'm not just whistling here, let me say I've had legal consulatation regarding my husband's case, so I'm fully aware of the remedies available to me.

But, I did fail to connect the dots in my explanation. The recent press release refers to an expedite of the FBI namecheck, which is a part of Naturalization (AOS also). FBI namecheck is the normal reason for a Natz application being delayed beyond 120 days. Indeed there are petitioners for Natz that have been held in the process for 5 or more years.

What the press release says, in effect, is that USCIS will no longer request the FBI expedite a namecheck IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW. A granted Writ of Mandamus is an order from a court DEMANDING that the defendant comply. In the past, USCIS would normally expedite a namecheck upon the filing of a Writ - they did not wait for the judge to rule as they know what the law is. Now they are saying they will not only IGNORE the filing, but they will ask for the Writ to be dismissed.

If USCIS feels that way about an actual law which tells them when they must complete a task, just how do you think they will feel about your 'legal leg' for 6 months processing that is, at this point, merely a targeted goal?

Yes, I will happily bet my a$$ that should you go to court, you haven't a legal leg to stand on.

I would say if they allow accelerated processing for a higher fee, I can pretty much say that USCIS wouldn't have to worry about their operation budget.

consolemaster, for once, I gotta agree with you. If family based petitions could be expedited by the simple payment of a higher fee, DHS coffers would be full.

The USCIS can feel anyway they want about a writ...my question to you is whether they ignore it, ask it to be dismissed, or eat it for lunch - do they still have to submit to it? Where does it say that it WILL be dismissed and the poor guy waiting 5 years will have to wait another 5?

[rebeccajo 14]

The USCIS can feel anyway they want about a writ...my question to you is whether they ignore it, ask it to be dismissed, or eat it for lunch - do they still have to submit to it? Where does it say that it WILL be dismissed and the poor guy waiting 5 years will have to wait another 5?

Now you are getting warm.

It is new policy - so new it has no legal precedent. They SHOULD have to submit to it. But apparently they are going to wait for a judge to tell them, rather than simply following the law as originally written.

Does it not give you pause that they would even question whether or not they should comply? Insofar (that is) as to how that relates to processing times of other petitions which have NO legal timeframe guidance?

If they feel the way they do about a Natz filing, how do you think they perceive all others?

That's all I'm bandying about here. Nothing else.

[DA BOMB 1]

The USCIS can feel anyway they want about a writ...my question to you is whether they ignore it, ask it to be dismissed, or eat it for lunch - do they still have to submit to it? Where does it say that it WILL be dismissed and the poor guy waiting 5 years will have to wait another 5?

Now you are getting warm.

It is new policy - so new it has no legal precedent. They SHOULD have to submit to it. But apparently they are going to wait for a judge to tell them, rather than simply following the law as originally written.

Does it not give you pause that they would even question whether or not they should comply? Insofar (that is) as to how that relates to processing times of other petitions which have NO legal timeframe guidance?

If they feel the way they do about a Natz filing, how do you think they perceive all others?

That's all I'm bandying about here. Nothing else.

Of course it doesnt give me pause lol. How dare the USCIS resist doing what its told? Rebbecajo...this policy is so new I think you just pulled it our of your ear. It doesnt shock me that they feel they should not comply. If I ended up in court with my 6 month leg to stand on it would only be because they WERENT doing what they were told to do. You're really deep girl.

[TimsDaisy 0]

And all of this out of one post meant to be helpful for people in negotiating for attention from otherwise overworked, frequently new congressional staffers.

Lastly on this topic: I may be many things, but unemotional I am not. In fact, emotion is probably the number one reason why I could not go into immigration law - at least not family-based - as a practice area. You don't know much about me. I don't expect you to. Frankly, I don't want you to. I don't want to know much about you either. I neither write, nor sound, like a lawyer. I know this because I went to law school and I know how lawyers write and sound. I don't much care for lawyers, truth be told, because most of the profession is based on obfuscation and fear. If I sound "lawyer-like" because I prefer to ground my contributions to this site in regulation and fact, rather than conjecture and guessing, then so be it. But that's legislation and public policy talking. Not lawyering. There is a difference.

The more everyone here understands the process, the rules, the regulations, the law, and where the came from, the better off we'll all be. I will NEVER apologize for encouraging people to fight laziness and start owning their own government - especially when something as personal as their marriages DEPENDS ON IT.

[Minya's wife 24]

Wow, 69 posts so far! Let's make it an even 70 then, shall we?! Edited March 23, 2007 by Paula&Minya

[DA BOMB 1]

And all of this out of one post meant to be helpful for people in negotiating for attention from otherwise overworked, frequently new congressional staffers.

Lastly on this topic: I may be many things, but unemotional I am not. In fact, emotion is probably the number one reason why I could not go into immigration law - at least not family-based - as a practice area. You don't know much about me. I don't expect you to. Frankly, I don't want you to. I don't want to know much about you either. I neither write, nor sound, like a lawyer. I know this because I went to law school and I know how lawyers write and sound. I don't much care for lawyers, truth be told, because most of the profession is based on obfuscation and fear. If I sound "lawyer-like" because I prefer to ground my contributions to this site in regulation and fact, rather than conjecture and guessing, then so be it. But that's legislation and public policy talking. Not lawyering. There is a difference.

The more everyone here understands the process, the rules, the regulations, the law, and where the came from, the better off we'll all be. I will NEVER apologize for encouraging people to fight laziness and start owning their own government - especially when something as personal as their marriages DEPENDS ON IT.

No, all because I asked when they would increase the fee. Maybe I should have asked if I can marry two beneficiaries at the same time or do I need to pay for postage to actually mail my petition? I dunno. Yeah lol you really do sound lawyer like - I've never heard the word obfuscation before in my life!

[rebeccajo 14]

The USCIS can feel anyway they want about a writ...my question to you is whether they ignore it, ask it to be dismissed, or eat it for lunch - do they still have to submit to it? Where does it say that it WILL be dismissed and the poor guy waiting 5 years will have to wait another 5?

Now you are getting warm.

It is new policy - so new it has no legal precedent. They SHOULD have to submit to it. But apparently they are going to wait for a judge to tell them, rather than simply following the law as originally written.

Does it not give you pause that they would even question whether or not they should comply? Insofar (that is) as to how that relates to processing times of other petitions which have NO legal timeframe guidance?

If they feel the way they do about a Natz filing, how do you think they perceive all others?

That's all I'm bandying about here. Nothing else.

Of course it doesnt give me pause lol. How dare the USCIS resist doing what its told? Rebbecajo...this policy is so new I think you just pulled it our of your ear. It doesnt shock me that they feel they should not comply. If I ended up in court with my 6 month leg to stand on it would only be because they WERENT doing what they were told to do. You're really deep girl.

Thank you darling. I'm going to take that boldened part of your reply as a compliment to me knowing my stuff, rather than hiding in the vale of emotionalistic entitlement.

[rebeccajo 14]

I neither write, nor sound, like a lawyer. I know this because I went to law school and I know how lawyers write and sound. I don't much care for lawyers, truth be told, because most of the profession is based on obfuscation and fear.

Daisy, I'm in the profession too, but from the support side. I think you write like a lawyer. Why apologize for it?

As for obfuscation and fear, I'd have to say that's not a tactic practised by what I call the 'good' lawyers - the ones who represent their clients with morality and style, as well as their brains. I work for one of those few rare animals. He never uses fear - he uses caution. And his brain.

[LaL 418]

The USCIS can feel anyway they want about a writ...my question to you is whether they ignore it, ask it to be dismissed, or eat it for lunch - do they still have to submit to it? Where does it say that it WILL be dismissed and the poor guy waiting 5 years will have to wait another 5?

Now you are getting warm.

It is new policy - so new it has no legal precedent. They SHOULD have to submit to it. But apparently they are going to wait for a judge to tell them, rather than simply following the law as originally written.

Does it not give you pause that they would even question whether or not they should comply? Insofar (that is) as to how that relates to processing times of other petitions which have NO legal timeframe guidance?

If they feel the way they do about a Natz filing, how do you think they perceive all others?

That's all I'm bandying about here. Nothing else.

Of course it doesnt give me pause lol. How dare the USCIS resist doing what its told? Rebbecajo...this policy is so new I think you just pulled it our of your ear. It doesnt shock me that they feel they should not comply. If I ended up in court with my 6 month leg to stand on it would only be because they WERENT doing what they were told to do. You're really deep girl.

wow rebecca - you must have also pulled all of those recent MOTION TO DISMISS cases out of your ear as well (cases where a Writ was filed!) There are at least a dozen on the other site we belong to. You must have been up all night! OMG OH NOES! the USCIS is resisting what its being told by the courts based on its newly published regulations (dec 2006). but then again - you also pulled THAT out of your ear.

I have to follow this up by saying to you m.b.b. if there was a way to stop what is happening now in our case (fbi namecheck delay) I would have found it. I found a way to get our K1 security clearnace looked at and subsequently stopped, I am resourceful enough to find a way through the AOS namecheck debacle - oh wait i DID! I just stumbled upon it a few months prior to their new regs! OH NOES! but hey - if entitlement makes you feel better (and not bitter!) by all means - have at it!

Edited March 23, 2007 by lal_brandow