Jump to content

NewsFlash! Faster Security Clearances !

Stats

By Stats,
in AOS & Immigration Challenges

Recommended Posts

Stats

Stats

Posted
Posted (edited)

I am in at a loss for words due to shock and joy. I guess CIS finally caved into legislative pressure and Writ of Mandamus suits, including mine. I am calling the AUSA first thing Monday morning.

 

"The USCIS issued an Interoffice Memorandum on February 4, 2008 under the subject of "Revised National Security Adjudication and Reporting Requirements." The memo makes important changes to the security check procedures for cases pending before the USCIS, aligning the USCIS's procedures for background and security checks in connection with certain applications with the procedures used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In short, it will now be possible for the USCIS to approve the I-485, Application for Adjustment of Status, even where the FBI name check clearance has not been received, if the name check takes longer than 180 days. "

 

http://www.murthy.com/nflash/nf_020708.html

 

Time to go wake up the SO. As far as I know, this is the real deal. I am seeing it on numerous boards. (Mods, this should probably pinned, unless someone has contrary information)

 

OMG, maybe member #153's SO will finally see a GC.

 

Edit: I found the USCIS memo, see page 7

 

http://immigrationportal.com/attachment.ph...mp;d=1202337346

 

Expidite Fax information:

 

NSC Expedite Request Fax Numbers and Guidelines

 

NSC has confirmed that Expedite Requests may be faxed to the following numbers: 402-219-6344 or 402-219-6171. Faxed Expedite Requests should include a brief explanation of the qualifying basis for expedite review (see list below) and be accompanied by evidence (preferably limited to one or two pages). Expedite processing is NOT available for premium processing-eligible forms unless the petitioner is a not-for-profit entity.

 

[there is no "list below". I am trying to find out what that means]

 

http://www.berdklauss.com/?p=22

 

 

If you haven't sued, AILF is recommending send a demand letter to CIS. I'd also contact your representative and Senator. Now we've got some ammo and CIS/FBI might not be able to blow us off as usual.

 

Further info; AILF weighs in:

 

http://www.ailf.org/lac/clearinghouse_mandamus.shtml#fbi

 

 

"All applicants with pending court actions to which the memo would apply may alert the court to the change in agency policy by filing a motion with the court with the USCIS memo attached. The motion may state that all prerequisites for immediate adjudication have been met: 1) the application is covered by the memo, e.g., it is an Application for Adjustment of Status (I-485); 2) the FBI and IBIS check have been completed and; 3) the FBI name check request has been pending for 180 days. The motion may request that the court issue an order remanding to the agency for immediate adjudication of the application.

 

Applicants who have not filed district court actions, but otherwise meet the requirements outlined in the memo, may send a demand letter to the agency with the memo attached requesting immediate adjudication of their application. This demand letter may cause the agency to move more quickly to adjudicate the application. If it does instigate action, the letter may be helpful if the applicant then decides to file a mandamus/APA action because the agency is not implementing its new policy.

 

If an applicant is unsure whether the delay in the adjudication of his or her application is caused by FBI name check delays, it may still be a good idea to send a demand letter to USCIS with the memo attached."

 

Expiditing probalby won't work. They were talking about the normal criteria:

 

• Severe financial loss to an individual or company;

• Extreme emergent situation;

• Humanitarian situation;

• Nonprofit status of requesting organization with the expressed goal of furthering the cultural and social interests of the U.S.;

• A situation related to the Department of Defense or a national situation;

• A USCIS error; or

• A compelling interest of the case to the USCIS.

 

Applications covered under revised USCIS policy:

 

"This new procedure will apply to Applications for Adjustment of Status (I-485); Applications for Waiver of ground of Inadmissibility (I-601); Applications for Status as a Temporary Resident Under Section 245A of the Immigrant and Nationality Act (I-687), or Applications to Adjust Status from Temporary Permanent Resident (Under Section 245A of Public Law 99-603) (I-698). USCIS will still require name check clearance for Applications for Naturalization (N-400)."

Edited by LeeFisher3 (see edit history)
Link to comment
C4Racer

C4Racer

Posted
Posted (edited)

This is great news for those who are waiting.

 

It has always amazed me that the Dept. of Homeland Security could take so long in aquiring background information. Hell, the police who stop you for a traffic infraction can run a simple check while they are writing you a ticket from thier car!! Like Carl likes to point out, in the case of the I-485 the person having the background check performed on them is living in the US. One reason for this background check is to identify those who we do not wish to have within our borders. So why can they lazily take months and even years to perform this check, all the while this person is living within our borders. What kind of security is that? Seems to me they should be mandated to perform this check within days or weeks so they can keep our country safe.

Edited by C4Racer (see edit history)
Link to comment
Stats

Stats

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Great news, get your fax in quick before they get backed up.

 

I'm afraid that simply issuing the memo is enough of an excuse for them to "back up"

 

Yeah, me too. Luckily I have already sued (WOM). I am going to file another motion, as noted below.

 

I couldn't edit the pinned post, if a mod could add this to the top, it might be a good idea

Edited by LeeFisher3 (see edit history)
Link to comment
Stats

Stats

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Further information:

 

From what I am seeing, USCIS has committed to an oldest first policy and will be throwing additional resources at the backlog using an $20M appropriation (see email to Cannon at pinned CIS memo). My information, while preliminary and not verified, seems to confirm this approach.

 

Therefore, if you are at, say 9-12 months, I wouldn't pin any hopes of a quick resolution. If you are way out the the time-line, like my SO, it is possible that a quicker resolution may happen.

 

In my case, online status was updated on 2/3/08. The text is the same since 7/2007, but somebody did something.

 

[Mods, please edit pin as deemed necessary]

Link to comment
Randy W

Randy W

Posted
Posted (edited)

This link is not working. Any other ones?

 

 

edit = Never mind - there it is on page 7 of http://immigrationportal.com/attachment.ph...mp;d=1202337346

 

 

never mind, he found it

 

Never mind - you're right! It's not there anymore. Can someone post a pdf file on CFL?

 

I've emailed a copy of it to David. Hopefully, he can post it.

Edited by Randy W (see edit history)
Link to comment
Stats

Stats

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Further information (some of it applies to employment based):

 

FAQ: USCIS¡¯ New I-485 Processing Policy

 

http://www.hooyou.com/news/news021508faq.html

 

From above, important FAQ for those wondering about inquiries:

 

Given this new policy, should I send an inquiry to USCIS to push my case?

 

No, at least not right now. It will take some time for this rule to go into effect, so you shouldn¡¯t expect immediate results.

 

On February 13, USCIS confirmed that they are conducting ¡°sweeps¡± to find adjustment-of-status cases that can be reviewed for adjudication based on the new policy. USCIS hopes to have identified and taken action on these cases by April 30, 2008, so you may want to hold off inquiries until then.

 

Furthermore, this rule only applies to applicants who are specifically waiting on name checks. If your application is being delayed for other reasons¡ªfor example, if no visa number is available to you¡ªthen this rule does not apply to you."

Edited by Stats (see edit history)
Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...