Matthew Udall

Hi Tom,
No, I don't condone the government lying to anybody, and no I don't believe anybody is better off being kept in the dark.

I also don't believe that they should perpetuate a system of putting processing time numbers on receipt notices that are not realistic, and that they should foresee these unrealistic numbers being relied upon to someone's determent. It is a plain fact that processing time changes at the service centers from time to time for a wide variety of reasons, and to put a number on a piece of paper that cannot be changed seems to turn a blind (on the INS'S part) to that reality. Just today I've read many reports from those who either had wedding plans ruined or are stressing out about not being able to meet future plans, and I feel for them and think it is a shame they were put in that position.

Bottom line, the dates they list on a static piece of paper (on a receipt notice) can't/don't change (they don't recall the notices if something happens to speed up or slow down processing time at a particular service center). Since processing times will “always� vary, I don’t see how they can list a number on a piece of paper and think that number will always hold true (what was the person thinking that came up with that system?). And that is why I think they need a better system that will 1) make it less likely that people will make plans that they won’t end up being able to pursue due to delays they were not anticipating, and 2) offer a different way to know what is going on as far as “where is my case in the system right now�. If such a system were in place, “and� if the inaccurate numbers were taken off of the notices, I think that would go a long way in eliminating situations where people’s plans are being ruined, and in reducing the perceptions that the government is lying about processing times.

So far as I can tell, they have taken steps to address one of my two suggestions above. They do now offer a different way to know what is going on as far as “where is my case in the system right now� (its not perfect, but its better than an unrealistic number printed on a receipt notice). The Service Centers themselves (not INS HQ) make detailed internal reports about cases moving through their particular office, and every couple of weeks, or every month (they usually don’t go longer than 1 month although I do see gaps longer than a month from time to time) they give those numbers to the American Immigration Lawyers Association as a courtesy (and if I had my way, they would issue new numbers each and every day instead of once or twice a month). AILA turns around and gives them to the AILA membership and many AILA members then post those numbers to websites, which are accessed by the public (I’ll bet just about every AILA member with a website does this).

By using the reports (again, which are not perfect), one can usually tell if one’s case has made it to the point of being taken off of the shelf and given to an officer. Once it gets to an officer, the INS’S position is that the officer should either approve, deny, or ask for more evidence within 30 days of getting the case (60 days at the MSC, at least that is what the MSC’S reports say). This is a better way to at least know two things, 1) is my case with an officer yet, and 2) is it overdue. If it becomes overdue, the service center should be notified so they can take any steps needed to get that case back on track and out the door and on its way to the Department of State who in turn does “their� thing with the case at unspecified timeline intervals.

For the life of me, I don’t know why they don’t post those reports on the INS site (hey, maybe the do… does anybody know for sure). I don’t believe they do, and I think they should plus give a detailed explanation next to the report on how to determine when a case is overdue. What I do (and every other AILA member who posts these numbers on their sites) is to help spread the word about this system, the reports to determine if a case has been given to an officer yet, and when its overdue. I do this for a variety of reasons, one of the most important being to try to help the immigration community (comprised of U.S. Citizens and their international loved ones) from relying on the “old technology� system (an ink on paper number that cannot change, that is unrealistic, appearing on a receipt notice) in the hope of seeing “less� reports from people saying they have made plans that are now being ruined. So instead of “defending� INS, I’m trying to help the community learn about this alternative system, which gives more realistic information.

But this alternative system will always be questioned and never will be as effective as it could be as long as the old system is kept in place. As long as they keep listing processing time estimates on receipt notices, there will always be people who will rely on those numbers to their detriment. And again, I think that is a shame and is one of the reasons I want to help spread the word about the alternative system. The INS Service Centers themselves (directors and/or top staffers) have consistently said that they have no control over the processing times listed on their notice. They don’t come up with those numbers nor do they have the authority to change them or delete them. Those numbers come from INS HQ, which “tells� each service center what to put on their notices (And I’ll bet the Service Centers know the numbers are often not realistic and can lead to people relying on them to their detriment, and is probably why the Service Centers themselves do give these reports as an alternative way to get case information). So to get rid of the “old system� of putting unrealistic numbers on notices, INS HQ needs to be persuaded that this is a serious of enough problem to do something about it (to eliminate the numbers). That’s why I recommended the other day that we should start a letter writing campaign to INS HQ to try to get this changed (especially letters from those whose plans have been ruined).

Here are some things I think should happen as far a changes go: First, each service center should publish their reports on their own websites so you don’t have to go to an AILA members site for the numbers. I believe the numbers would somehow seem more official to the public by publishing them that way. Along side of the reports there needs to be a detailed explanation on how to use the report (what does it mean) and how to determine when a case is overdue, plus an easy way for someone to contact them to let them know if it does become overdue (I think they should also make it clear that contacting them before it is overdue won’t get it put in front of someone else’s case unless compelling circumstances warrant an expedite). I think they should also take a bunch of photos of each section of each service center and put together a “virtual tour� if you will, or a “here are the steps your petition takes along its way at the Service Center�. Believe me, these operations are massive, and until I saw the Service Centers with my own eyes, I had very much underestimated the size and scope of their operation. They “must� do away with listing projected processing times on the notices, and instead (on the notice) they should mention how to find the Service Center reports on the net (of course, that is not perfect since not everybody owns a computer or has access to the net). And I think they need to put a bold warning on each and every form from the INS that people come into contact with, their websites, and the receipt notices, informing people that processing times do change at the Service Centers, and to not make any plans, quit jobs, dispose of property, buy airline tickets, make wedding plans, etc., until the beneficiary has the visa in hand. Does anybody have other suggestions?

I’ve mentioned how I think it’s foolish for them to list a number on a static piece of paper such as a receipt notice in light of the fact that processing times are always in flux at a service center (and they don’t recall those notices every time a speed up or slow down occurs). But they did just come out with their on-line status-checking page. Personally, I don’t think it’s much better than the old system, however it does have one advantage. They “can� change the projected processing time numbers easily, however as I’ve outlined above I have a problem with “projected processing times� in general as they never seem to be accurate so I really don’t think that is the best way to use the web (making an on-line version of the old receipt notice method… as people might just rely on those projected processing times to, and who knows if they are any more accurate than the ones appearing on the static piece of paper).

So “my beef� is seeing a system in place that makes it likely for people to make plans that just might end up being ruined. I think its reasonable for people to think they can trust the numbers on the notices (and I think they have a legitimate beef when those numbers are not met), and INS needs to change their way of letting people know what’s going on with their case (eliminate projected times all together and instead focus on where the case is at in the system), coupled with adequate warnings to people not to make “any� plans until the visa is issued.

Good luck in your case Tom. I hope it’s approved soon.

Regards,
Matthew Udall
Attorney

Jana

Is there are cliff notes version of your post?

ILiftBig2001

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Matthew Udall
Hi Tom,
>>>No, I don't condone the government lying to anybody, and no I don't believe anybody is better off being kept in the dark.<<<

You don't? Seems to me you do. They give you information, yet they give me nothing when I call but the run around. See a problem yet Matthew?

>>>I also don't believe that they should perpetuate a system of putting processing time numbers on receipt notices that are not realistic, <<<

Yet they do. In my job if I put unrealistic (lies) numbers like this on my work, I would be on the street corner looking for a new job. Why shouldn't the INS ber held to the same standards the rest fo the business world is held to?

>>>It is a plain fact that processing time changes at the service centers from time to time for a wide variety of reasons, <<<

So perhaps they might be better off saying 60-120+ Perhaps if they would do away with some of the rediculous backgrounds checks and other waists of tax payer's money they might be slighly more efficient at their jobs and get thinigs done slightly quicker. Most of us are well to familiar with how our government employees work. It take 10 people to do what 1 in the business world can do.

>>>Just today I've read many reports from those who either had wedding plans ruined or are stressing out about not being able to meet future plans, and I feel for them and think it is a shame they were put in that position.<<<

Yes, in in the real world had a business been given a job and provided a deadline to a client and money was lost because of a gross oversite in the deadline completion both parties would be in a civil court. Too bad the INS can't be held responsible for all the huge fiancial losses they have neglegantly caused to people with their lies. I promise I wold be the first in line to sue their butts.

>>>I think that would go a long way in eliminating situations where people’s plans are being ruined, and in reducing the perceptions that the government is lying about processing times.<<<

So what are you personally doing to help make some of these changes? Defending the INSon this group...encouraging the rest of us to not have beefs with the INS and just accept being treated like 2nd class citizens? What?

>>>So far as I can tell, they have taken steps to address one of my two suggestions above. They do now offer a different way to know what is going on as far as “where is my case in the system right now� (its not perfect, but its better than an unrealistic number printed on a receipt notice). <<<

So who do they tell this to? So far YOU are the only one aware of this secret formula. So far, I have not read ONE single account of anyone who can back up what you have claimed.

>>For the life of me, I don’t know why they don’t post those reports on the INS site (hey, maybe the do… does anybody know for sure). <<<

Maybe my theory is much closer to being realistic than yours.....they prefer us to be in the dark. Maybe all of these delays are their pathetic way to get more money budgeted to the INS from the Fed. It's not like this trick hasn't been tried in other federal departments....now has it?

>>>So instead of “defending� INS, I’m trying to help the community learn about this alternative system, which gives more realistic information.<<<

As an attorney, I would have expected you to spend more of your time defending people who file these petitions. Instead all I have seen you do is offer one excuse after another for why the INS is so screwed up. Who's side are you really on? Makes me also wonder again, who do you really work for? The INS?

>>>The INS Service Centers themselves (directors and/or top staffers) have consistently said that they have no control over the processing times listed on their notice. <<<

Then who does have control. They are the ones processing the petitions. Maybe I should try this pathetic excuse at my job. No...I am held accountable for my work. Maybe I need a government job so I don't have to be held accountable?

>>>numbers come from INS HQ, which “tells� each service center what to put on their notices (And I’ll bet the Service Centers know the numbers are often not realistic and can lead to people relying on them to their detriment, and is probably why the Service Centers themselves do give these reports as an alternative way to get case information). <<<

So the INS HQs needs to get off their lazy asses and make sure the service centers are doinng what they have ask them to do. Sounds like one had doesn't know what the other is doing. Pretty typical for government employees.

>>>That’s why I recommended the other day that we should start a letter writing campaign to INS HQ to try to get this changed (especially letters from those whose plans have been ruined).<<<

Oh...trust me....its all going to hit the fan soon.

First, each service center should publish their reports on their own websites so you don’t have to go to an AILA members site for the numbers. I believe the numbers would somehow seem more official to the public by publishing them that way. Along side of the reports there needs to be a detailed explanation on how to use the report (what does it mean) and how to determine when a case is overdue, plus an easy way for someone to contact them to let them know if it does become overdue (I think they should also make it clear that contacting them before it is overdue won’t get it put in front of someone else’s case unless compelling circumstances warrant an expedite). I think they should also take a bunch of photos of each section of each service center and put together a “virtual tour� if you will, or a “here are the steps your petition takes along its way at the Service Center�. Believe me, these operations are massive, and until I saw the Service Centers with my own eyes, I had very much underestimated the size and scope of their operation. They “must� do away with listing projected processing times on the notices, and instead (on the notice) they should mention how to find the Service Center reports on the net (of course, that is not perfect since not everybody owns a computer or has access to the net).

>>>And I think they need to put a bold warning on each and every form from the INS that people come into contact with, their websites, and the receipt notices, informing people that processing times do change at the Service Centers, and to not make any plans, quit jobs, dispose of property, buy airline tickets, make wedding plans, etc., until the beneficiary has the visa in hand. Does anybody have other suggestions?<<<

I think there needs to be a deadline set on approval of these petitions and these INS people need to be held to them or lose their jobs like the rest of us. What I personally think is they the INS is purposely cuase all of these nit pickey delays in an attempt to either 1) get more money budgeted; and 2) to discourage immigration.

>>So “my beef� is seeing a system in place that makes it likely for people to make plans that just might end up being ruined. <<<

Exactly my beef, yet you question my right to have this beef. My plans have already been ruined more than one because of INS negligence. Yes....I am pissed. Had this been a contractor I had hired to do work for me I would sue their pants off. Should the INS be held to any less standards?

Tom

katesuiter1

As for the INS telling us not to make any plans, they contradict themselves. On the IV-15 checklist, it asks for the date of travel, and the wedding date. What do you write? Maybe.....

"Sorry, can't answer this one. I have no idea where my petition is, it's probably being used as a draught excluder, and I have no idea when TSC are going to process it. I can't get through to them, and the people that have say it's a waste of time anyway."

And on the G-325A, it asks if you have employment in the US. How about.....

"Nope. See, I don't fancy wasting a potentially good employer's time by saying I can take a job, and then have everything thrown into turmoil, thus harming my chances of being offered a job with them at a later date."

I'm all for making changes to the system so loved ones can be re-united quickly and as stress free as possible, but when are they going to implement these changes? Sensitive people are like ticking time bombs, and the INS don't help when they give people the run-around. I agree with you on that one thing, Matt. INS should publish the numbers on their OWN sites. At least they can't pass the buck.
Kate. xxxxxx

Matthew Udall

Hi Tom,
My "where's the beef" comment was made in the context that your case is not overdue yet as per the calculation made using the reports. You were not aware of the reports and apparently don't put much stock in them, so my "where's the beef" comment made in that particular context of a calculation using those reports was a poor choice. Sorry. I apologize.

As far as having a beef for unrealistic numbers appearing on a receipt notice (since it is reasonable for someone who does not know about the alternative reports to rely on those numbers), I agree that you do have a valid beef there, one that I share with you.

And thanks for the suggestion as to holding them accountable if they don't live up to a quoted time frame. Anything that will get everybody's case through the system is a good thing.

And even though you might not believe the reports and the calculation as to the overdue date, keep that date I calculated for you in the back of your mind (it was 01/28 or 01/29, right?) because if that date comes and goes, you just might find your attorney's contact with them (or a reps contact with them) might be even more effective after the overdue date based on this calculation.

Good luck, Tom.

M.U.

Matthew Udall

Hi Kate,
4 days to go eh! You must be getting excited. Good luck at the Consulate.

Isn't the IV-15 a Consular form, not an INS form? I have one in front of me, and I also see on the last page the explicit warnings about not giving up a job, selling property or making final travel arrangements until one receives the visa. It even goes on to note that one has up to 6 months to use the visa once issued, which should be helpful in giving enough time to tie up loose ends in the U.K.

I will grant you that it seems some UK'ers try submitting this form to the Consulate "before" their petition is approved at a Service Center, but there are also those who submit it once the petition has been forwarded to the Consulate and they are starting the Consulate part of the process.

When answering the questions about date of travel and date of wedding, it would obviously be harder to pick dates when the case is still at the INS instead of in its final stages at the Consulate. I wonder what they would do if you put a notation on the bottom saying travel plans and a wedding date have not yet been scheduled as per the warning on the form. Or perhaps, will travel to the U.S. within 6 months of visa issuance, and wedding date within 90 days of entry. I'll bet they see lots of IV-15's that don't give firm dates for these items. Since you are going to be at the post in a few days, ask them about it and see what they say.

Not really. It asks for employment for the past 5 years, but it does not specify employment in the U.S. only. For the international beneficiary, I list all employment for the past 5 years regardless of which country where the employment occurred. Right below that field is a line for last employment abroad if not shown above, so for my international beneficiary's G-325A on that line, I'll often list "shown above".

Whenever they start monkeying around with the system, often what we get isn't any better than what they started with. I'll bet you and I could come up with a better system. I wish they would implement my suggestions, as I think it’s far better (and less stressful) to everybody to be dealing with accurate information instead of unrealistic projected time quotes. I think we all can see that projected time quotes are a failure and damaging to the immigration community.

Good luck at your appointment in 4 days, Kate.

M.U.

ILiftBig2001

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Matthew Udall
Hi Tom,
My "where's the beef" comment was made in the context that your case is not overdue yet as per the calculation made using the reports. You were not aware of the reports and apparently don't put much stock in them, so my "where's the beef" comment made in that particular context of a calculation using those reports was a poor choice. Sorry. I apologize.

As far as having a beef for unrealistic numbers appearing on a receipt notice (since it is reasonable for someone who does not know about the alternative reports to rely on those numbers), I agree that you do have a valid beef there, one that I share with you.

And thanks for the suggestion as to holding them accountable if they don't live up to a quoted time frame. Anything that will get everybody's case through the system is a good thing.

And even though you might not believe the reports and the calculation as to the overdue date, keep that date I calculated for you in the back of your mind (it was 01/28 or 01/29, right?) because if that date comes and goes, you just might find your attorney's contact with them (or a reps contact with them) might be even more effective after the overdue date based on this calculation.

Good luck, Tom.


Well, since my last posting I had a long talk with my attorney. I ask her about the AILA and she said yes she has been a member for quite a while now. She also say she pays they quite a bit of money every year for membership. They use to be very helpful and offered a lot of information and help to expedite cases but NOW....nothing. My attorney gets nothing from the AILA, yet you seem to get so much. Wonder why?

I also showed her a copy of your posting about that theory you apparently got fromt he AILA as to how to figure our exact approval date. My attorney laughed when she read that. Why is it you get this information from the same AILA my attorney is a member of yet mine has never been advised of this formula? Seem strange to you?

I also ask her about the IBIS investigations that are apparently holding up things...so you say. She has also never been told that this is happening. Now Mr Udal, why is it you are so privy to information when the public and even my attorney is not. Who are you really? Who do you work for?

Yes.......good advice My Udal, I called the number the INS gave us on their web site after we do online checks of our status. The phone rang and rang and rang......I guess no one was home.

My attorney also said that the last time she called them she finally got someone to answer and was put on hold for a long time and then hung up on. How is that for taking care of business. Furthermore she says that when she finally got someone the phone they were not only rude, had an attitude like they were GOD. She agrees with me and says now the INS is doing a horrible job and is holding peoples' life hostage. Dahhh.....just what the rest of us have been saying.

My attorney also had another question? How does an immigration attorney have so much time to post "free" information to this news group all day long? She says she hardly has time to check her email and wants to know your secret. Got any advice?

The bottom line is we are being given the run arond. Our government is waging their own little private war on immigrants. I also have a feeling the iNS isd playing budget games? wonder why......wasn't this exposed on 20 minutes or something like this easlier? They are telling employees to take their time approving things and then claiming they can't get their jobs done so they can get more money budgeted?

What kind of game is this...and at who's expense. Once again, the tax payers are taking it up the rear.......real people are being affected by the lies and games and real lives are being devistated. Someone needs to be held accountable and all you can do is defend the INS? Go figure.

Tom

Ronald Austin

Seems to me like your attorney is not with the program. The only thing I
know about INS is from reading this NG, BUT, as a career bureaucrat
(retired), Matt's explanations ring true with what I know of gov't. INS
seems more screwed up than any agency I worked with except for the FAA.
People are in the ground because of FAA screwups. INS simply inconveniences
the hell out of all of us waiting for a loved one.


"ILiftBig2001" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Originally posted by Matthew Udall
    > > Hi Tom,
    > > My "where's the beef" comment was made in the context that your case
    > > is not overdue yet as per the calculation made using the reports. You
    > > were not aware of the reports and apparently don't put much stock in
    > > them, so my "where's the beef" comment made in that particular context
    > > of a calculation using those reports was a poor choice. Sorry. I
    > > apologize.
    > >
    > > As far as having a beef for unrealistic numbers appearing on a receipt
    > > notice (since it is reasonable for someone who does not know about the
    > > alternative reports to rely on those numbers), I agree that you do
    > > have a valid beef there, one that I share with you.
    > >
    > > And thanks for the suggestion as to holding them accountable if they
    > > don't live up to a quoted time frame. Anything that will get
    > > everybody's case through the system is a good thing.
    > >
    > > And even though you might not believe the reports and the calculation
    > > as to the overdue date, keep that date I calculated for you in the
    > > back of your mind (it was 01/28 or 01/29, right?) because if that date
    > > comes and goes, you just might find your attorney's contact with them
    > > (or a reps contact with them) might be even more effective after the
    > > overdue date based on this calculation.
    > >
    > > Good luck, Tom.
    > >
    > >
    > > Well, since my last posting I had a long talk with my attorney. I ask
    > > her about the AILA and she said yes she has been a member for quite a
    > > while now. She also say she pays they quite a bit of money every year
    > > for membership. They use to be very helpful and offered a lot of
    > > information and help to expedite cases but NOW....nothing. My
    > > attorney gets nothing from the AILA, yet you seem to get so much.
    > > Wonder why?
    > >
    > > I also showed her a copy of your posting about that theory you
    > > apparently got fromt he AILA as to how to figure our exact approval
    > > date. My attorney laughed when she read that. Why is it you get
    > > this information from the same AILA my attorney is a member of yet
    > > mine has never been advised of this formula? Seem strange to you?
    > >
    > > I also ask her about the IBIS investigations that are apparently
    > > holding up things...so you say. She has also never been told that
    > > this is happening. Now Mr Udal, why is it you are so privy to
    > > information when the public and even my attorney is not. Who are you
    > > really? Who do you work for?
    > >
    > > Yes.......good advice My Udal, I called the number the INS gave us on
    > > their web site after we do online checks of our status. The phone
    > > rang and rang and rang......I guess no one was home.
    > >
    > > My attorney also said that the last time she called them she finally
    > > got someone to answer and was put on hold for a long time and then
    > > hung up on. How is that for taking care of business. Furthermore she
    > > says that when she finally got someone the phone they were not only
    > > rude, had an attitude like they were GOD. She agrees with me and
    > > says now the INS is doing a horrible job and is holding peoples' life
    > > hostage. Dahhh.....just what the rest of us have been saying.
    > >
    > > My attorney also had another question? How does an immigration
    > > attorney have so much time to post "free" information to this news
    > > group all day long? She says she hardly has time to check her email
    > > and wants to know your secret. Got any advice?
    > >
    > > The bottom line is we are being given the run arond. Our government
    > > is waging their own little private war on immigrants. I also have a
    > > feeling the iNS isd playing budget games? wonder why......wasn't this
    > > exposed on 20 minutes or something like this easlier? They are
    > > telling employees to take their time approving things and then
    > > claiming they can't get their jobs done so they can get more money
    > > budgeted?
    > >
    > > What kind of game is this...and at who's expense. Once again, the
    > > tax payers are taking it up the rear.......real people are being
    > > affected by the lies and games and real lives are being devistated.
    > > Someone needs to be held accountable and all you can do is defend the
    > > INS? Go figure.
    > >
    > > Tom
    > --
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Matthew Udall

Hi Tom,
I obviously can't speak for your attorney as I'm not her, I don’t know her or her practice, nor have I ever met or spoken with her. All I can tell you is that I find my AILA membership to be very worthwhile. They have a wonderful system for getting and sharing all sorts of useful information with the AILA membership. Being an AILA member also gives me access to the AILA liaisons for each of the separate service centers if an issue were to come up that I just can’t resolve on my own (The AILA liaison is a direct conduit to the Service Center that I can use to bring a problem to the attention of the proper party at a Service Center), but we are supposed to try to resolve the problems on our own first before resorting to the AILA liaison). But since no such issue has confronted me (I've been able to take care of any INS caused problem or screw up that has come up in my client's cases) I've not needed to use one of the AILA liaisons yet.

Being an AILA member affords me the opportunity to attend national AILA conferences and other training sessions over time to keep up on the latest developments. I get to meet with various experts in various areas of immigration law, plus get to talk with (or at least listen to speeches from ) top INS and Department of State officials. I also have access to AILA experts who act as mentor attorneys if needed, and it affords me the opportunity to travel and attend service center tours. I used to just hit the CSC tours as the CSC is so close to home, but this year I flew out and attended the AILA liaison meetings and tours at the MSC, the NSC, the TSC, and I even toured the National Records Center... the "mysterious cave in Missouri". I find that I pick up information by actually going to these events that I would never get any other way. I can only speculate, but if I get more out of my membership with AILA than another attorney, perhaps I’m availing myself more of the opportunities and information AILA membership provides (in fact, I don’t see how any attorney could seriously stay up on everything and do a good job for his immigration clients without being an active member of AILA, but that’s just my opinion).

Nope, it would not seem strange to me at all if another attorney did not avail himself of all that AILA membership has to offer, lets say for example, by attending the INS tours. First, it’s not a theory, and second it did not come “from� AILA (and by the way, it’s not used to figure out an exact “approval� date, but rather how to tell when a case has been taken off of the shelf and given to an officer, and thus how to calculate an “overdue� date). This is information that came straight from the INS Service Centers themselves.

As I mentioned before, touring the service centers themselves always yields a gem or two of information that I would not have picked up any other way (but of course, I take my job and client’s cases seriously, so I feel it’s my duty to get into the minutia of service center processing). This is an example: Back when I was still living and practicing in San Francisco (this must have been in 97 or 98), I flew down to attend a CSC liaison meeting (obviously, at the CSC). At that meeting, Dona Coultice (the director of the CSC at that time) told the 150 to 200 (or so) AILA attorneys in attendance of the new system INS HQ was trying out on the CSC first (CSC was the guinea pig) to see how well it worked. They called it the CSC Just In Time Reporting system, or JIT Report for short. She showed us the new format of the JIT Reports and carefully explained how to read the report to determine when a case was overdue at the CSC. She clearly stated that it was INS policy that once a case is overdue by 30 days, that we were to contact them “at that time� to make them aware of this so they could take a look to see what was wrong or why that case/officer was taking so long. She mentioned we should not longer use the numbers printed on the CSC’S notices and to use the JIT Report instead as that will provide much more accurate information [and this is where I heard for the first time that those numbers on the CSC’S notices didn’t come from the CSC itself, but rather from INS HQ]. Of course, when I returned from this meeting, I shared this information with the news group, and have been doing so since then.

Although they have recently removed the “How to Read this Report� blurb from the end of the CSC’S reports, I still have it and it says, “An application or petition with a Receipt Notice date listed above should be processed within 30 days of this notice�… (and at the very bottom, in bold print it said), “Please wait thirty days after the current processing date of your case is shown above before inquiring�. And during a different tour of the CSC a year or two later, I asked the Ombudsman who was conducting my tour (it was just me and 1 other AILA attorney) if we should use calendar or business days when counting the days from the publication date of the report. He said to use business days, but that sometimes their budget allows for them to work weekends and holidays, so we should include those weekends and holidays if we know they were on duty on those weekends or holidays… yeah, like I would ever know that :-).

Over the years, the other service center’s reports started resembling the CSC’s reports, but it wasn’t until recently while I was attending the Missouri Service Center AILA liaison meeting (I was one of around 15 AILA attorneys for the entire U.S. who bothered flying out to Missouri to attend this first time offered MSC meeting… hey, was your attorney in attendance… if so maybe I “have� met her as I met each and every other AILA member who attended) that I heard Jim Burzynsky (the Director of the MSC at that time, former director of the TSC) announce that all of the “aging� reports were now going to be uniform among the Service Centers. I heard the same thing repeated about the uniformity of the reports a month later when I flow to Lincoln to attend the NSC’S AILA liaison meeting and tour of the NSC, and 4 days after that when I flew to Dallas to attend the TSC’S AILA liaison meeting and tour of the TSC.

Oh, while at the NSC, I followed Sadie W. out of the large meeting room as I wanted to ask her some more detailed questions about I-129f processing at the NSC (she’s in charge of that product line, and again as I do a lot of K-1 work through the NSC I wanted to know certain things that did not come up in the general meeting). I specifically asked her if I should use calendar days or business days when calculating when the case is overdue. We discussed using 30 days and the report to calculate the overdue date, but she wasn’t 100% sure if I should be using business or calendar days. She ended up saying to use business days, but again she was not 100% sure. I also mentioned what I’ve been told from other service centers, namely that the numbers on their notices come from INS HQ and not the service centers themselves. She nodded her head in agreement and said the same holds true at the NSC, and is why I should be using the reports they give to AILA instead of the numbers they have no control over that appear on their notices.

Please stop with the innuendoes, thanks. I’m a solo practitioner, Cal. Bar member, AILA member, working by myself in Pasadena California, doing my best to make sure my client’s cases go through the system as quickly as possible.

Never heard of IBIS? You are joking right? This was highly publicized by AILA to the membership, and I don’t know how anybody could have missed it. All an AILA member has to do is go to the AILA infonet and search under IBIS to be flooded with IBIS information. I know you are not an AILA member, Tom, so you can’t do this yourself, but I’ll bet if you go to some AILA members sites (I don’t publish articles on my site… to busy with my pro bono work in the group and with my clients cases… not enough hours in the day) you will find articles about IBIS. Check the site for Sheena Murthy (I met her while at the AILA conference in Seattle a couple of years ago, very nice person), or try Carl Shusterman’s site (see him quite often at our So. Cal. Chapter AILA monthly meetings, and he’s a nice person too). I know they both publish articles on their sites, and I’m sure you will find material on IBIS.

Matthew Udall

(My reply was a little long, so I split it into two parts. Here is the shorter, remainder of my reply).

I don’t recall “advising� you to call them. I find that calling and trying to get through to an INS “Service Center� is a total waste of time (although on my last tour at the CSC, Lisa, my tour guide and senior staffer at the CSC gave me a special “attorney’s only� number where I can call any time during the day and get straight through. I actually used it a few days later to try to reach Lisa, and it worked). Calling District offices is another story, and as an AILA member I have all of the numbers and names of the top staffers in all of the District Offices. I use them quite often to find out policy and/or answers to questions I have before filing and AOS or other application, or to resolve a screw up they bring into one of my client’s cases. I usually talk to a very friendly INS officer who is more than willing to take time to talk to me (I usually call them around closing time) and very polite and professional (maybe because I treat them this same way). But when it comes to Service Centers, I would never try to contact them via phone! That would be a waste of time. I use the fax numbers to fax my written inquiry directly to the proper “product line� at a Service Center (I think its better to put your problem in writing so they have it in my own words to look at, instead of relying on someone else on the other end of the phone to take proper notes and be willing to write down all the details necessary).

It’s all a question of time allocation Tom. You see, if I have a day where I’m not particularly busy, that gives me the opportunity to read and post more (plus, I type really, really fast :-). On days where I’ve got a lot of work to do, I post less or not at all. But I generally check in at least once a day. I consider it to be a way of doing pro bono work by offering general information that might not be available to the do-it-yourselfer from any other source. Some days I volunteer 2 or 3 hours, and I’ve been participating, volunteering my time this way since late 98 or early 99. Plus it helps if one works 12 to 15 hour days (which I do), and I’m usually in the office on Saturdays and quite often on Sunday’s too. Yes, I’m single, and the constraints on my time might be different from another attorney who might be married, have a family, work in a big firm (not his or her own boss) or other commitments. Feel free to give your attorney my number, and I’ll be happy to talk to her about anything I’ve mentioned here…. She might have questions about processing or need a fax number or two. I’d be happy to share with her.

Good luck with your case, Tom.

Regards,
Matthew Udall
Attorney
http://members.aol.com/MDUdall/fiancee.htm

Ronald Austin

My Russian fiancé said from what I've told her of the process that the INS
must've trained under Soviet bureaucrats.

angeles73

History demonstrates that Soviet bureaucracy (and their way of doing things) suffered a huge downfall and eventually the people forced change. Sounds like INS needs a little of the same medicine.

Ange

Ronald Austin

LOL!! Amen to that!


"angeles73" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > History demonstrates that Soviet bureaucracy (and their way of doing
    > things) suffered a huge downfall and eventually the people forced
    > change. Sounds like INS needs a little of the same medicine.
    > Ange
    > Originally posted by Ronald Austin
    > > My Russian fiancé said from what I've told her of the process
    > > that the INS
    > must've trained under Soviet bureaucrats.
    > --
    > ange
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

ILiftBig2001

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Matthew Udall



Obviously the AILA's worthiness is debatable.



So if its not a theory who can we find to substantiate and prove what you claim? In science observations are backed by fact.....so far al you have done is offer conjecture....no facts, no documentation. This to me is no better that the supposed facts the INS gives to petitioners about when we can expect our approval. Mine was 60-90 days. Now you expect me to believe the INS overdue claims too?

[QUOTE]Please stop with the innuendoes, thanks. I’m a solo practitioner, Cal. Bar member, AILA member, working by myself in Pasadena California, doing my best to make sure my client’s cases go through the system as quickly as possible. [QUOTE]

Perhaps my question or innuendo as you like to call it should have been addressed earlier instead of ignored? I have a hard time understanding why it is that YOU spend so much of your time defending the INS and all their sleazy excuses? Kind of makes me think that you may be here as a paid INS employee helping with public relations trying to defuse some of unrest and anger they have caused. Not like this doesn't happen. It is easy for the fed to set up a web site and give someone all the credentials they need. Tell me I am not right Mr. Udal. This is the internet....remember. We can be anyone we like to be........including myself. You don't know me and I can give you url after url of web sites that I can create in minutes. I can also set up phony accounts on this service and be different people. Proxies can be used so no one can trace isps. Yes I know a few tricks my self and know our federal government does things like this to manipulate our thoughts and decisions. Please Mr. Udal, don't take me for a gullible idiot. The INS is already making that mistake.

[QUOTE]Never heard of IBIS? You are joking right? This was highly publicized by AILA to the membership, and I don’t know how anybody could have missed it. All an AILA member has to do is go to the AILA infonet and search under IBIS to be flooded with IBIS information. I know you are not an AILA member, Tom, so you can’t do this yourself, but I’ll bet if you go to some AILA members sites (I don’t publish articles on my site… to busy with my pro bono work in the group and with my clients cases… not enough hours in the day) you will find articles about IBIS. Check the site for Sheena Murthy (I met her while at the AILA conference in Seattle a couple of years ago, very nice person), or try Carl Shusterman’s site (see him quite often at our So. Cal. Chapter AILA monthly meetings, and he’s a nice person too). I know they both publish articles on their sites, and I’m sure you will find material on IBIS. [QUOTE]

Exactly Mr. Udall, I am not an attorney and an certainly not an AILA member. In fact I has never even heard of the AILA until recently. I had also never had any dealings with the INS until August of this year. I sent in my petition like any other citizen of the USA who is filing to have the love of his or her life do and only go on what OUR federal government is telling us. They told me 60-90 days. My attorney also agreed with what they said. Like many others we have made plans based on the the lies we have been mislead to believe. Wy not......we trust our government don't we. Now because we believed their lies we have to suffer. Yes some of us huge financial problems will be the result. Other liken my self and my fiancee will have some huge legal problems in foreign countries to have to deal with because MY government lied and mislead us. Little good the AILA does me. This who damn process should be so simple and easy to do that immigration attorneys are not even needed. However, like our federal tax forms, our government insists on making these forms so complicated that more and more we have to hire attorneys so little nit picky mistakes are not used to keep against us. It is very clear that the FED knows they can't keep us from getting married to a person from outside the USA, but they can make it hard on us by nit picking us to death in hopes that we will get frustrated and give up. If you want to help us fine...we need all the help we can get. But do yourself a favor and quit trying to defend the INS. I at one time might have decided to have you take over my case, but I will not hire someone who I feel may not be on my side 100%. Looks like your allegiance is to the INS.

Tom
1st DOA 9-27 Totally in the dark and not going to take it any more

ILiftBig2001

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Matthew Udall



So don't you find that strange that the petitioners or better yet......the American citizen is not given a "special number" that we too can call and get information about our own damn petition? Do you have to be an attorney or Congressman to get any answers from the INS? Pretty sad that this country has come to the point that the only was a US citizen can get any information from our own government is to hire an attorney to get it. I guess you being attorney don't see a problem here either?



Well Mr. Udal, since you claim you are here to be helpful why is it you have not given me that special fax number yet. You offered to me a while back, I said I would like to have it.

If you are going to help people and claim you are doing so as a part of our pro bono obligations then do so. So far all you have done is give us a pie in the sky theory, offered by INS (the same who brought us 60-90 days), and a lot of public defenses for a government organization that has not worked for several years. Living in California you should be just as aware of this as we are here in Texas.

Tom

1st NOA 9-27
approval date 60-90 days
day 106 and counting