Salo&Romashka

The letter is taking shape well. If we could squeeze it in, I think we need to point out that by submitting our families to long waits they are denied the option of opening other visas. There is no chance my loved one can open a tourist visa to come for the holidays because we waiting on the pending petition.
There was a question about past numbers. Instead of looking through threads I want to remind everyone AILA keeps tracks of past processing tables. http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?bc=1016|8767|6741&utm_source=InfoNet&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=Homepage_ContentBlock
Their data goes back to 2002 for NBC if we wanted to compare historical wait times in another graphic. There is also saved processing tables for the other service centers.
The timing of last letter worked out well because we can point to the sudden change in reporting from the 18th to the 20th of last month.
Are we sure the letter led to action by anyone from the House Judiciary Committee? The wording suggests there was some action but I haven't seen it. There was an opportunity to discuss DACA in relation to legal immigration today in their meeting and I didn't see it. There was over 3 hours of statements, testimony, questions, and answers.
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/113th/hear_12032013.html
The closest thing I heard was Professor Turley's warnings about a 'fourth branch'
...our carefully constructed system of checks and balances is being negated by the rise of the sprawling departments and agencies that govern with increasing autonomy and decreasing transparency. p 6

With the expansion of the government has come a shift in the source of governing rules for society. Today, the vast majority of “laws” governing the United States are not passed by Congress but are issued as regulations, crafted largely by thousands of unnamed, unreachable bureaucrats. p 7

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/113th/12032013/120313%20Turley%20Testimony.pdf

I suggest you contact your local Congressman as well. New York has 27 and they may respond in a more timely manner than Schumer or Gillibrand. Be sure to fill out their forms requesting help and then mail/ fax that in. If you get a response, let us know here on the forums.

The second letter is looking good. A few suggestions:
1) Is there any chance we can use a screenshot of current I-130 Immediate Relative processing volumes instead of the graphic from Immigration Road? It would include a few more months of data and would be from USCIS itself.
2) Consider using the wording of this letter to DHS as it voiced the very concerns we now have about DACA implementation. Look at the first, sixth, and final paragraphs:
http://judiciary.house.gov/news/pdfs/Smith-Grassley%20letter%20to%20Secretary%20Napolitano.pdf

The second letter is looking good. A few suggestions:
1) Is there any chance we can use a screenshot of current I-130 Immediate Relative processing volumes instead of the graphic from Immigration Road? It would include a few more months of data and would be from USCIS itself.
2) Consider using the wording of this letter to DHS as it voiced the very concerns we now have about DACA implementation. Look at the first, sixth, and final paragraphs:
http://judiciary.house.gov/news/pdfs/Smith-Grassley%20letter%20to%20Secretary%20Napolitano.pdf

The second letter is looking good. A few suggestions:
1) Is there any chance we can use a screenshot of current I-130 Immediate Relative processing volumes instead of the graphic from Immigration Road? It would include a few more months of data and would be from USCIS itself.
2) Consider using the wording of this letter to DHS as it voiced the very concerns we now have about DACA implementation. Look at the first, sixth, and final paragraphs:
http://judiciary.house.gov/news/pdfs/Smith-Grassley%20letter%20to%20Secretary%20Napolitano.pdf

Well, I just returned from my job...found the building. It's a lovely building and looks sparkling new. For those of you who have gone to the street view and seen the ITT building, the Immigration building is the other half of the same building. There are signs all over the parking lot which say,
"US Government Leased Property
No Trespassing or Soliciting
TOW AWAY ZONE
This property is closed to the public
Employee Parking Only".
I'm not so sure how that works with ITT being the same building...maybe they make them park in another lot.

Well, I suppose --seeing as it's for the VJ team--I'd be able to stop by the area. I've eaten at that Cheesecake Factory just around the corner, so I'm pretty sure I could find it. Give me till the weekend, and I'll do my best.

I think you just located our files!

The second letter is looking good. A few suggestions:
1) Is there any chance we can use a screenshot of current I-130 Immediate Relative processing volumes instead of the graphic from Immigration Road? It would include a few more months of data and would be from USCIS itself.
2) Consider using the wording of this letter to DHS as it voiced the very concerns we now have about DACA implementation. Look at the first, sixth, and final paragraphs:
http://judiciary.house.gov/news/pdfs/Smith-Grassley%20letter%20to%20Secretary%20Napolitano.pdf

Ok, back to the drawing board. We don't need to ask for new legislation to be written if there's something already in the works. I think we need a campaign targeted to the the 6 listed in this article. They seem to have the right idea.
Rep. Perry Introduces DHS Accountability ActOn Thursday, Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) introduced H.R. 3611, legislation that would require the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to submit an annual report to Congress on the effects of the Obama Administration’s immigration policy changes. The legislation would also require future changes be made through the formal rulemaking process, as opposed to by mere policy memoranda as it is currently being done by DHS.
Specifically, Perry’s “DHS Immigration Accountability and Transparency Act of 2013” would require the DHS Secretary to submit annually to the Homeland Security Committees of the House and Senate a report that includes statistics and other data on the effects of President Obama’s backdoor amnesty initiatives. (See H.R. 3611 §2(a)) The information to be gathered in the report includes:
Statistics on the removal of aliens from the U.S. over the last 10 years, including the number of aliens placed in removal proceedings, but never removed;
Statistics and a cost-benefit analysis regarding the use of Federal funds to implement each immigration policy directive issued by the Obama Administration;
The number of aliens without lawful presence or status in the U.S. with status that was modified or otherwise adjusted as a result of each policy directive;
The number of aliens without lawful presence or status in the U.S. who applied for and were denied relief under a policy directive, including the percentage of aliens who were denied relief but DHS never removed from the country (and explanation as to why);
The number of removal cases “administratively closed” as a result of the Obama Administration’s directives, as well as the new status (if any) granted to the alien; and
Statistics on the number of aliens without lawful presence or status in the U.S. who have been released from prisons or detention centers since President Obama took office. (Id. at §2(b))
The report must be made public, providing the American people the ability to view and monitor the effects of the Administration’s immigration directives. (Id. at §2©)
Moreover, to prevent additional abuses of discretion by President Obama and from any prospective administration, the legislation also takes the important step of ensuring that any future immigration policy changes are treated as a rule under the Administrative Procedures Act. (Id. at §3) This change would allow stakeholders and the public to view and comment on an administration’s proposed changes prior to them taking effect.
Thus far six true immigration reformers have signed on Rep. Perry’s legislation as co-sponsors, including Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Lou Barletta (R-PA), Tom Cotton (R-AK), Phil Gingrey (R-GA), Lamar Smith (R-TX), and Chris Stewart (R-UT).

I've been doing a lot of thinking about how we can keep this issue on the minds of elected officials and now I have an idea for the second letter. I've attached a proposed example in .pdf format.
Basically we need something that gets our message out quickly and powerfully. Using the format of a 'Missing' poster, anyone willing to submit another email or fax would be given a chance to put a face to the petition you've been waiting so long on. It has a shock value because it's using a familiar format but in a very different way. Anyone who has a word processor can easily edit the poster to add the details of their loved one. If you can post on this forum, you have all the computer skills you need to edit the .doc file. I will attach the file to a future post if people like this idea.
missing-idea.pdf

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/25/Massive-Delays-for-Legal-Immigrants

My suggestion is that we follow the money. USCIS is a fee based agency mainly and it depends on filing fees we pay to function. The final reason petitions were left to sit it can probably be traced back to a lack of resources. However, to take on a workload without adequate funding is a violation of Anti-Deficiency laws. If you study recommendations made by the Ombudsman from 2006-2007 you can see that USCIS has considered this in the past:
The Ombudsman Urges Consideration of a Revolving Trust to Fund USCIS

In the 2006 Annual Report (at p. 29), the Ombudsman suggested that USCIS approachCongress to establish a revolving trust account that would be replenished from future fees. A revolving trust would: (1) enable the agency to test innovative processes; (2) address unexpected program requirements from new legislation; (3) avoid potential temporary anti-deficiency concerns; and (4) encourage USCIS leadership to develop new processes instead of continuing programs which do not enhance customer service, efficiency, and national security, but nevertheless generate essential revenue. In its 2006 Annual Report Response (at p. 12), the agency stated: USCIS has researched this and has found that even though fees would eventually replenish the appropriated funds deposited in the fund, the legislation required to enact such a vehicle is not deficit neutral. Therefore, any legislation would have budget scorekeeping implications within the context of the scorekeeping conventions of the Administration and the Congress. USCIS does not discuss the benefits or drawbacks of a revolving trust. It only comments on the budget scorekeeping questions. The Ombudsman continues to believe that a revolving trust would resolve many of the USCIS revenue and funding problems. http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/2007%20Annual%20Report.pdf The truth is that part of your fee is also paying for someone else's processing. Just look at the fee schedules for forms to see some paperwork is done for 'free'. http://www.uscis.gov/forms%C2'> 'The total fee for Forms I-821D, I-765 and the I-765WS is $465. This fee includes a $380 fee for Form I-765 and an $85 biometric services fee.' Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, and Biometrics are standard costs for many people at one time or another. The cost for those services has been set and it's probably enough to cover the work. For some reason this fee based agency decided to process I-821D at no cost. Storing, sorting, data entry, adjudication, transferring and processing that form takes time and resources. If USCIS was not gaining anything in fees for all those forms, the resources had to come from somewhere else. Guess what I-821d is the form for?

My suggestion is that we follow the money. USCIS is a fee based agency mainly and it depends on filing fees we pay to function. The final reason petitions were left to sit it can probably be traced back to a lack of resources. However, to take on a workload without adequate funding is a violation of Anti-Deficiency laws. If you study recommendations made by the Ombudsman from 2006-2007 you can see that USCIS has considered this in the past:
The Ombudsman Urges Consideration of a Revolving Trust to Fund USCIS

In the 2006 Annual Report (at p. 29), the Ombudsman suggested that USCIS approachCongress to establish a revolving trust account that would be replenished from future fees. A revolving trust would: (1) enable the agency to test innovative processes; (2) address unexpected program requirements from new legislation; (3) avoid potential temporary anti-deficiency concerns; and (4) encourage USCIS leadership to develop new processes instead of continuing programs which do not enhance customer service, efficiency, and national security, but nevertheless generate essential revenue. In its 2006 Annual Report Response (at p. 12), the agency stated: USCIS has researched this and has found that even though fees would eventually replenish the appropriated funds deposited in the fund, the legislation required to enact such a vehicle is not deficit neutral. Therefore, any legislation would have budget scorekeeping implications within the context of the scorekeeping conventions of the Administration and the Congress. USCIS does not discuss the benefits or drawbacks of a revolving trust. It only comments on the budget scorekeeping questions. The Ombudsman continues to believe that a revolving trust would resolve many of the USCIS revenue and funding problems. http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/2007%20Annual%20Report.pdf The truth is that part of your fee is also paying for someone else's processing. Just look at the fee schedules for forms to see some paperwork is done for 'free'. http://www.uscis.gov/forms%C2'> 'The total fee for Forms I-821D, I-765 and the I-765WS is $465. This fee includes a $380 fee for Form I-765 and an $85 biometric services fee.' Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, and Biometrics are standard costs for many people at one time or another. The cost for those services has been set and it's probably enough to cover the work. For some reason this fee based agency decided to process I-821D at no cost. Storing, sorting, data entry, adjudication, transferring and processing that form takes time and resources. If USCIS was not gaining anything in fees for all those forms, the resources had to come from somewhere else. Guess what I-821d is the form for?

My suggestion is that we follow the money. USCIS is a fee based agency mainly and it depends on filing fees we pay to function. The final reason petitions were left to sit it can probably be traced back to a lack of resources. However, to take on a workload without adequate funding is a violation of Anti-Deficiency laws. If you study recommendations made by the Ombudsman from 2006-2007 you can see that USCIS has considered this in the past:
The Ombudsman Urges Consideration of a Revolving Trust to Fund USCIS

In the 2006 Annual Report (at p. 29), the Ombudsman suggested that USCIS approachCongress to establish a revolving trust account that would be replenished from future fees. A revolving trust would: (1) enable the agency to test innovative processes; (2) address unexpected program requirements from new legislation; (3) avoid potential temporary anti-deficiency concerns; and (4) encourage USCIS leadership to develop new processes instead of continuing programs which do not enhance customer service, efficiency, and national security, but nevertheless generate essential revenue. In its 2006 Annual Report Response (at p. 12), the agency stated: USCIS has researched this and has found that even though fees would eventually replenish the appropriated funds deposited in the fund, the legislation required to enact such a vehicle is not deficit neutral. Therefore, any legislation would have budget scorekeeping implications within the context of the scorekeeping conventions of the Administration and the Congress. USCIS does not discuss the benefits or drawbacks of a revolving trust. It only comments on the budget scorekeeping questions. The Ombudsman continues to believe that a revolving trust would resolve many of the USCIS revenue and funding problems. http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/2007%20Annual%20Report.pdf The truth is that part of your fee is also paying for someone else's processing. Just look at the fee schedules for forms to see some paperwork is done for 'free'. http://www.uscis.gov/forms%C2'> 'The total fee for Forms I-821D, I-765 and the I-765WS is $465. This fee includes a $380 fee for Form I-765 and an $85 biometric services fee.' Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, and Biometrics are standard costs for many people at one time or another. The cost for those services has been set and it's probably enough to cover the work. For some reason this fee based agency decided to process I-821D at no cost. Storing, sorting, data entry, adjudication, transferring and processing that form takes time and resources. If USCIS was not gaining anything in fees for all those forms, the resources had to come from somewhere else. Guess what I-821d is the form for?

My suggestion is that we follow the money. USCIS is a fee based agency mainly and it depends on filing fees we pay to function. The final reason petitions were left to sit it can probably be traced back to a lack of resources. However, to take on a workload without adequate funding is a violation of Anti-Deficiency laws. If you study recommendations made by the Ombudsman from 2006-2007 you can see that USCIS has considered this in the past:
The Ombudsman Urges Consideration of a Revolving Trust to Fund USCIS

In the 2006 Annual Report (at p. 29), the Ombudsman suggested that USCIS approachCongress to establish a revolving trust account that would be replenished from future fees. A revolving trust would: (1) enable the agency to test innovative processes; (2) address unexpected program requirements from new legislation; (3) avoid potential temporary anti-deficiency concerns; and (4) encourage USCIS leadership to develop new processes instead of continuing programs which do not enhance customer service, efficiency, and national security, but nevertheless generate essential revenue. In its 2006 Annual Report Response (at p. 12), the agency stated: USCIS has researched this and has found that even though fees would eventually replenish the appropriated funds deposited in the fund, the legislation required to enact such a vehicle is not deficit neutral. Therefore, any legislation would have budget scorekeeping implications within the context of the scorekeeping conventions of the Administration and the Congress. USCIS does not discuss the benefits or drawbacks of a revolving trust. It only comments on the budget scorekeeping questions. The Ombudsman continues to believe that a revolving trust would resolve many of the USCIS revenue and funding problems. http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/2007%20Annual%20Report.pdf The truth is that part of your fee is also paying for someone else's processing. Just look at the fee schedules for forms to see some paperwork is done for 'free'. http://www.uscis.gov/forms%C2'> 'The total fee for Forms I-821D, I-765 and the I-765WS is $465. This fee includes a $380 fee for Form I-765 and an $85 biometric services fee.' Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, and Biometrics are standard costs for many people at one time or another. The cost for those services has been set and it's probably enough to cover the work. For some reason this fee based agency decided to process I-821D at no cost. Storing, sorting, data entry, adjudication, transferring and processing that form takes time and resources. If USCIS was not gaining anything in fees for all those forms, the resources had to come from somewhere else. Guess what I-821d is the form for?

USCIS has now dropped its National Average for I-130 processing times to 7.4 months. If you have been waiting longer than that time frame you can now take this press release, the notice of workload transfers released October 21, 2012, and a printout of processing times to Congressmen, Senators, Field Offices, Ombudsman as proof of need for assistance at USCIS. Ideally petitioners should know CURRENT processing times, not data from two months ago. The more USCIS hears from elected officials, the more incentive they will have to look at cases. If you have been waiting that long it's not only in your interest but in the interest of speeding things along for everyone behind you.
[5 U.S.C. § 555(b)] “[w]ith due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it.”


[8 U.S.C. § 1571] “t is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days after the initial filing of the application.”

E-mails sent!
Good luck people!

Sent! Thanks!

I've sent all of them the letter and so far I've received 2 automated replies. I hope everyone will do this. Maybe we can finally get them moving.

Goodlatte is tricky, you can submit an email through his website if you masquerade as one of his constituents. Any address in his district will do to submit the email form. I used Main Street, Staunton VA, 24401.
http://goodlatte.hou...ov/contacts/new

Sent ours today by email... We had problems sending it to Hannity and Goodlatte

Awesome community effort everyone!!!

ALL SENT ------ Since my computer is sending out it is sending 12 copies each to each number with different fax headers.

Done x 5 email accounts and 3 x fax". I'm with the guy who said "God be with us!"