AILA/CSC QUARTERLY MEETING
DECEMBER 4, 2001

AGENDA

GENERAL QUESTIONS

1. Inquiry System. 

A. Members continue to note that they almost never receive responses to their fax inquiries. Following the inquiry procedures, it takes well over a month to have a problem case resolved. What steps are being taken to modify the current inquiry system so that we can resolve problem cases in a more expeditious manner? 

In an effort to improve the fax inquiry process, the ACDs are monitoring first level inquiries and will make adjustments within their Divisions to ensure that responses are made at that level. 

An additional fax machine was installed to accommodate certain types of second level inquiries (see attached CSC Level Two Inquiry form). The inquiries will be tracked to ensure that accurate responses are rendered in a timely manner. Attorneys must send second level inquiries concerning items not listed on the "CSC Level Two Inquiry Form" to the appropriate ACD's fax number. 

Attorneys should continue to adhere to the established fax inquiry process and ensure that they are sending their inquiries to the appropriate Division.

B. It appears that the contractor has caught-up on the backlogs in the mailroom. At this point, how long must an attorney wait, after responding to an RFE, before inquiring on the status of a pending case? 

The contractor has resolved the backlogs in the mailroom. The contractor is now concentrating on reducing backlogs in the File Room. 

Attorneys should contact the CSC if they have not received a Notice of Action (I-797) within 60 days of mailing the response to the CSC. It is imperative that the blue coversheet accompanies the response to ensure that the response is routed in the appropriate manner.


2. Change of Address. 

Members continue to note that they are having problems with change of address requests at the CSC. At the last CSC meeting, we were told to mail attorney change of address information directly to the Ombudsman. Attorneys report that after confirming with information officers that the address has been updated, RFE's are still being sent to the old address. In the event that a RFE has been sent to the old address, what steps should the attorney take to have the RFE re-sent to the new address? 

Although there may be an electronic record of the change of address, the old labels have not been pulled from the receipt folder resulting in the mailing of the document to the old address.

If it is known that the RFE was sent to the wrong address, attorneys should contact the appropriate Division and request that a copy of the RFE be sent to the correct address. 

3. Change in Attorney of Record. 

What is the current procedure for filing a G-28 on pending application/petition, so that the new attorney of record can inquire on the case status for the client? 

The attorney must mail the G-28 to the CSC requesting that the record be updated to include the new attorney information, as the original signature is required.


4. Mailing Addresses. 

The CSC website states different zip codes for the P.O. Boxes than those in the CSC Guidelines. Would the CSC take steps to make sure the zip codes provided in both documents are consistent? 

The Special Assistant to the Director is currently revising the CSC Guidelines. The 2002 Guidelines will reflect the correct zip codes for the PO boxes.


5. Impact of September 11, 2001. 

Has the CSC instituted any policy regarding the mail disruptions that occurred as a result of the events surrounding September 11? How is the CSC dealing with responses to RFE's or extensions that were not received in a timely manner due to the mail disruptions? 

The CSC will exercise leniency on a case by case basis.

DIVISION I (I-131, I-140, I-485, I-526, AND I-829)

6. Advance Paroles. 

A. Would the CSC include the processing time for I-131 on the JIT report? The last two JIT reports only contain information regarding receipts, but do not indicate the processing time for I-131s. 

Yes, the processing time will be included in future JIT reports. The I-131's were not included in the previous JIT reports because there were no I-131's on the JIT shelf.

B. Since the CSC issues approval notices for I-765 applications, why is the CSC unwilling to issue similar notices when the I-131 applications are approved? 

This is a computer system issue that is not within the CSC's control.

C. At the last meeting, the CSC stated that attorneys cannot have clients' advanced paroles or EADs sent to their offices. Please explain the reason for this policy. Because it takes the CSC a significant amount of time to update address changes when an applicant moves, it would prevent the return of many advance paroles and EADs if these documents could be sent care of the attorney's address. 

The document will be mailed to the mailing address listed on the form.

D. Members report in large numbers that, according to CSC records, advance paroles are being sent to the correct address noted on the I-131, but that the documents are not being received at the address. There seems to be a problem with the way in which these approvals are being sent out. Would the CSC please investigate this trend to see if this problem can be resolved? 

We have investigated the problem and believe that it may have been due to a training issue, which has subsequently been resolved.

Please provide us with a list of WAC numbers for any cases where the advance parole document was not received. If we determine that the non-receipt was due to Service error, we will reissue the document. 

7. I-829s. 

It was mentioned at the September 10, 2001 CSC liaison meeting that approximately 15 officers would be trained to adjudicate EB-5 and I-829 cases to reduce the backlog. Has this training been completed? Are the officers in place and adjudicating I-829s? 

Training was conducted by HQ for EB-5 and I-829 applications in September 2001. Petitions were distributed to each newly trained officer following the training. The CSC will continue assigning these cases in a continued effort to reduce the backlog. 

8. Address Changes for Applicants with Pending I-485s. 

We understand that when an applicant, who has a pending I-485 application, changes address, a letter updating the address should be sent with a Correspondence Cover sheet to Division I. Unfortunately, members report that notices, (e.g. fingerprint notices, EADs and advance paroles) are sent to the old address even after the new address information is sent to the CSC. How long does it take the CSC to update new address information? What steps should the attorney take if notices continue to be sent to the old address after the CSC has been notified of the new address?

The average processing time for responding to these inquiries and updating the system is 8 to 10 days. If notices continue to be sent to the old address, the attorney should forward the request by FAX to the Division 1 ACD at (949)389-3486. 

9. Mailing Address for I-485 Application. 

In many cases, an I-485 applicant changes address while her I-485 application is still pending. Given the logistical difficulties associated with having the address updated in the CSC database, is it possible to have the applicant provide a mailing address in care of a relative or friend? If so, how should both the residential and mailing addresses be listed on the I-485, G-325, I-765, I-131, and G-28? 

The actual residence should be listed as the residence on the G-325. The mailing address should be indicated as "C/O" (in care of). The attorney cover letter should also indicate the different addresses with an explanation.

10. Fingerprint scheduling. 

We understand that, as of 9/28/2001, the CSC has a new National Scheduler system in place to schedule fingerprint appointments for I-485 applications submitted after 5/1/01. Please confirm that this system is now in place and provide us with details regarding the new system. Also, please explain how fingerprints will be scheduled for I-485 applications filed prior to 5/1/2001. 

The National Fingerprint Scheduler is on line. Under the current procedure, the applicant is scheduled for fingerprinting at the time the application is received and the fee is taken. All of the applications filed after 05/01/01 have been scheduled in the National Scheduler. The applications filed prior to 05/01/01 have also been scheduled utilizing our local fingerprint program. If the applicant filed for adjustment of status prior to 05/01/01 but has not received a fingerprint notice, please notify this office via fax at 
(949) 389-3055. 

11. RFE's for Previously Submitted Documents.

 Members report receiving numerous RFE's for items included with the original I-485 filing in relation to applications filed for nurses. Is there an explanation for this perceived trend? Are new adjudicators being trained on I-485 applications filed by 
nurses? 

We apologize for the inconvenience but in some instances, the documentation may be requested because the documents submitted with the application are of poor photo/print quality, lack translation, etc. Using exhibit lists and tabs assists the officers in locating documents submitted within large packets. As new adjudicators enter on duty, they are trained on all I-485s.

12. Immigrant Visa Petitions for Nurses. 

When filing an I-140 petition on behalf of a registered nurse, the nurse is required to have a CGFNS certificate or be licensed in the state of intended employment. California does not require foreign nurses to complete the CGFNS examination in order to be licensed. However, the State will not issue a license unless a nurse has a social security number. Does the INS recognize the letter issued by the California Board of Nursing stating that all requirements for a license are completed and a license will be issued upon presentation of a social security number as sufficient evidence to approve the I-140? 

The INS does not recognize the above referenced letter issued by the California Board of Nursing. The INS requires a CGFNS certificate or a license. It is not clear why a person who is unable to obtain a license because they lack a social security number can not obtain a CGFNS certificate.

13. Notice of Intent to Revoke an I-140. 

If the CSC issues a Notice of Intent to Revoke an I-140 citing reasons A, B, and C, which the attorney responds to, but then issues a revocation citing reasons A, B, C, X, Y, and Z, shouldn't the CSC withdraw the revocation and issue a new Notice of Intent to Revoke to allow the attorney to address the new issues raised by the Service? In such a situation, what steps should the attorney take to have a new Notice of Intent to Revoke issued, and the revocation withdrawn? 

8 CFR 205.2(b) states that the petitioner or self-petitioner must be given the opportunity to offer evidence in support of the petition or self-petition and in opposition to the grounds alleged for revocation of the approval. If the petitioner was not offered the opportunity to rebut revocation reasons X, Y, and Z, then a new Notice of Intent to Revoke should be issued and the attorney can fax the request to the Division for appropriate action.

14. Processing Times for I-140s. 

It appears that the processing times for I-140 petitions have increased, and are not accurately reflected on the JIT report. Can you please explain the reason for increased processing times of I-140 petitions? 

Currently the processing time for I-140s has increased. This is due in part to the previous frontlog with the contractor in processing I-797s. Division I received a large number of resubmits prior to SWIP, which negatively impacted the adjudication of new cases. With the realignment in October, additional resources were brought into the Division. We anticipate the JIT shelf will move slowly while we train new officers and address the backlog. 


DIVISION II (I-102, I-129, I-539)

15. Seventh Year Extension of H-1B status.

 It appears that the CSC's current policy regarding a seventh-year extension for H-1B status is that the beneficiary must have exhausted the six years entitled to him before his employer can request the additional extension. Absent regulations, what is the CSC's authority for this position?

HQ dictated this policy months ago (see June 19, 2001, Mike Pearson memo, section E., AC21 106). We have received no further instructions pending regulatory changes.

16. Premium Processing. 

A. We realize that the CSC does not have the resources available to assign only senior adjudicators to the Premium Processing unit. Members report that some of the RFE's issued in premium processing cases indicate that newly trained adjudicators may be adjudicating these cases. Do the CSC adjudicators in the Premium Processing Unit need to have a minimum level of experience before being assigned to the unit? 

Senior CAO's adjudicate most of the more complex Premium Processing cases. At times we need the support of less experienced officers to meet deadlines.

B. Members report that they have been informed by the officers at the CSC that it is faster to mail premium processing conversion requests to the street address as opposed to the P.O. Box address. Is this information correct, and if so why are cases received at the street address processed more quickly than those received at the P.O. Box? 

The mailroom process is the same regardless of the address that the document is mailed to. Attorneys should clearly mark envelopes "Premium Processing" to assure proper handling.

C. If the CSC cannot find a premium processing filing, even though the attorney has proof that the petition was received at the CSC, what steps should the attorney take to have the petition located and adjudicated? Can the attorney cancel the check for the initial filing and re-file a second request? 

We can only ask that the attorney be patient while we try to track down the application/petition. 

The attorney should not cancel the check for the initial filing and re-file a second request. We allow 24 hours to find the application/petition before we will request a reconstruct, at which point the clock is stopped. Reconstruction of an application/petition can be done by our invitation only. 

It should be noted that upgrade requests on cases already in process require significant resources to locate and they create a tremendous strain on our resources. If a need for Premium Processing is anticipated, please file Premium Processing initially to avoid the delays of reconstructing. 

D. When a refund of the premium processing $1000 is made, can CSC request that the WAC number be noted on the check issued by the U.S. Treasury? 

Currently the Debt Management Center uses the reference listed in block 2 of the refund request form as memo text on the refund check. The Case Resolution Unit (CRU) will start using receipt numbers in block 2 effective 11/13/01. If no receipt number is available, the applicant's name will be the default.

E. How should a motion to reconsider be filed for a petition denied by the Premium Processing Unit? Will the motion be handled with any urgency given the fact that the petition was filed with a premium processing request? 

Motions and appeals are not covered under Premium Processing. We handle them as expeditiously as resources allow. Like responses to RFEs, motions and appeals are sent directly to the adjudicating Officer. Decisions are usually made fairly quickly. 

Appeals forwarded to AAO take much longer. Denied beneficiaries should not remain in the US unless they are continuing to maintain a valid nonimmigrant status.

17. Notice of Termination of H-1B Employee. 

Will the CSC treat an employer's notification of termination of an H1B worker as a revocation of the underlying visa petition? If so, can an employer notify the CSC of the termination of an H1B worker and, at the same time, specifically request that the petition not be revoked? 

Although we may not have prepared the termination/withdrawal notice, the case is considered automatically terminated on the date that the Service is notified. We cannot honor a request to not revoke a petition when the H-1B worker is no longer employed. The petition is not transferable to another beneficiary.

18. Consular Notification. 

Please confirm that the CSC still requires filing nonimmigrant visa petitions in duplicate when requesting consular cable notification. The CSC previously informed us of a pilot project to email Consulates evidence of the approval of NIV petitions. Does this project still exist and if so, is it still necessary to file petitions in duplicate?

This pilot project was limited to notification on I-129F fiancée(e) petitions for certain consulates. It did not extend beyond that limit.

The requirement for duplicates exists for other I-129s. If the EOS or COS cannot be granted, we need the copy to forward to the consulate. We have a significant number of denials for EOS/COS cases so we frequently need the copy. For those cases missing the required consulate information in Part 4, the Officer will pick the best consulate based on nationality and residence abroad. Any changes require filing an I- 824.

19. RFE's. 

A. Does the CSC have a policy regarding the number of RFE's that are issued on an individual case? For example, are adjudicators encouraged to issue one RFE raising all issues at one time, instead of issuing multiple RFE's? 

Expectations are that there should only be one RFE, one response and a decision based on the evidence of record. In some instances, a response to an RFE may raise other issues requiring clarification through the issuance of second RFE. If the first RFE is found to be deficient, we would prefer to issue a corrected RFE rather than deny the case (in an effort to provide an opportunity to establish eligibility).

B. Members note that they are receiving numerous RFE's requesting experience letters when the beneficiary clearly qualifies for H-1B status based on education alone. Does this reflect a training issue or a change in policy? 

Please provide specific examples.

C. RFE's are being issued in large number for H-1B Information Technology positions (e.g. systems analyst, database analyst, programmer analyst, database administrator, etc.) stating that the beneficiary is not qualified for the position based on a Bachelor's degree in electronics or electrical engineering even though the individual has extensive computer coursework highlighted on her transcripts. In the past these cases where approved without the issuance of an RFE. Does this trend reflect a change in policy at the CSC?

Officers are trained and encouraged to focus on matching the duties of the position with the beneficiary's credentials vice on the title of the position. In the scenario above, the job titles appear to be related to an EE. 
Attorneys should advise the ACD via fax when they see such inconsistencies where the degree directly relates to the position. 

D. Members report receiving RFE's for H-1B petitions where an evaluation of the beneficiary's work experience, included in the filing, was conducted by a credentials evaluation service. These RFE's state that the commercial evaluation service must demonstrate "authority to grant college-level credit for training and/or experience in the specialty at an accredited college or university" under 8 CFR Section 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(1). If the credentials evaluation service is not so authorized, please clarify when experienced-based evaluations by such services are useful under 8 CFR Section 212.2(h)(4)(iii)(D), and what documentation should be submitted in their support.

Commercial evaluation services can provide an opinion, which may help, if it is determined that 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D)(5) is invoked. Authority to grant the credit based on a combination of education and experience requires that one of the five criteria be met as found in 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(D).

20. I-539s. 

If an I-539 and an I-129 are filed together, but the I-539 is rejected because the filing fee check was not signed, is there any way to return the I-539 with the signed check to the CSC and have it adjudicated together with the I-129 instead of being treated as a separate filing? 

Unfortunately we cannot accommodate this request, as the cost in resources to do this is prohibitive. 

21. L-1 Amendments Due to Corporate Reorganization. 

What is the most efficient way to have a large number of L-1 amendments, required as the result of a corporate restructuring, adjudicated at the CSC? 

The files are separated during Data Entry. Since each petition must stand on its own merits, each case should be filed with supporting documentation. Along with the supporting documentation, a letter (on company letterhead) from a high-ranking official of the restructured company addressing the changes that have been made will assist in the adjudication process.

It should be noted that better known companies (especially if the company name is a household name) may need less supporting documentation than lesser known companies. 

DIVISION III (I-130, I-751)

22. I-130 Petitions. 

A. When an I-130 Family Preference Petition is pending at CSC, to whom do we address requests for old priority dates such as a WHPD date or an age out who turned 21? These petitions are taking years to adjudicate and often the beneficiary in this situation has a current priority date available to him.

Requests for old priority dates should be addressed to the Division III ACD at (949) 389-3219.


B. What procedure should be followed to expedite the processing of a pending I-130 petition in an age-out situation where the petitioner has just become a citizen of the United States? 

Please fax a copy of the I-130 petition and the age out cover sheet along with an explanation to the Division III fax number (949) 389-3482. 

A copy of the age out coversheet is attached.

C. Please confirm that it was the CSC's policy to forward I-130s filed pursuant to 245(i) to the appropriate jurisdiction prior to the April 30, 2001 filing deadline. If the CSC improperly rejected such a filing, what recourse is available if the new receipt date is after April 30, 2001? 

Petitioners had the option of filing I-485/I-130 applications concurrently with the district office having jurisdiction over their residence. Any I-485 application filed under 245I and concurrently with an I-130 prior to 4/30/01 was forwarded to the appropriate district office. They are otherwise held at the CSC pending adjudication.

For any petition you feel was improperly rejected please FAX a copy of the front side of the I-130 Petition and the rejection notice along with an explanation to substantiate why you feel that the petition was improperly rejected.

23. V Visa Issues.

A. Attorneys report that V visa applicants are being turned away at Consulates because their information does not appear in the CLASS system, despite the fact that they present a receipt indicating their I-130 has been pending over 3 years. Can CSC inform us how to expediently get the CLASS system updated so that these individuals can obtain the V visas? 

The CSC is not aware of a mechanism that would expediently update the CLASS system.

The Patriot Act included a provision that would give the INS read-only access to the CLASS system and the NVC read-only access to mainframe CLAIMS. When this occurs, the NVC will be able to access the information themselves through our computer systems. 

The comment period on the interim rule has passed; we do not expect many changes in the final rule. The final rule won't be issued until next year. We have not received procedural guidance from HQ.

B. Some Consulates abroad state that "potential beneficiaries of unapproved F2A petitions that were filed over three years ago may contact INS to request verification of the filing of the petition. INS should subsequently fax such verification to NVC at the following fax number: 603-334-0759. INS is the only entity that can confirm that an I-130 petition was filed. Posts have no authority to examine secondary evidence such as Form I-797 notices." What procedures does the CSC have in place to trigger the faxing of such verification to the NVC? 

Attorneys can fax a request to Division V (949) 389-3485. The request must contain a copy of the Receipt Notice reflecting that the petition was receipted over three years ago. 

24. I-751s.

 How should an attorney follow-up on a termination notice based on a failure to submit an I-751 when the application was submitted in a timely manner, but has not been logged in due to frontlog problems in the mailroom? 

Please send your inquiry to the AILA coordinator along with the pertinent information (ie: A number, Petitioner's name, DOB, Beneficiary's name and DOB).


DIVISION IV (I-90, SAW, I-765, I-817, TPS, N-400, Legalization)

25. EADs.

 How long is it taking the CSC to issue an EAD from the time the I-765 is approved? 

According to the contractor, it is taking approximately two months to scan an approved I-765 application. The respective card will be issued a few days after scanning is completed.

26. TPS. 

AILA attorneys with large numbers of clients applying for TPS have noticed that I-765s are adjudicated without regard to the CSC first-in, first-out policy. In other words, many applicants who applied in March, April, and May of 2001 have received nothing but I-765 receipts, while others who have filed since then have already received employment authorization cards. Although more than 180 days have passed since the initial filings, the Salvadoran TPS applicants cannot go to the district office to obtain their EADs because their TPS applications have not been adjudicated either. Numerous inquiries to the CSC have gone unanswered. Please give us an update on these cases and explain what action can be taken to move these cases along.

Two Divisions are currently working on I-765 and TPS applications. We are conducting a review of the cases on the shelf to ensure that they are staged in receipt date order.

Please fax your inquiries regarding I-765 applications to the following fax number (949) 389-3484.

DIVISION V (I-90, Waivers (I-212/612), I-824, I-881 NACARA, Customer Service)

27. I-90s.

 Members report that they have filed numerous I-90s at the District Office, only to find out that the applications have never been forwarded to the CSC. Is the CSC aware of this problem? Is there anything the CSC can do to make sure that these applications are forwarded to the CSC in a timely manner? 

The CSC is aware of the problem and has brought it to the attention of the Regional Director who oversees the district offices. It is suggested that AILA address this issue to the District Office.

28. I-612s. 

Members report that, on a regular basis, the CSC is failing to issue fee waived receipts when recommendation letters from the Department of State are received. Would the CSC make sure that the mailroom staff are trained to issue receipts for these cases? 

There is a mechanism in place to issue fee waived receipts. Unfortunately, in some instances, the Contractor may route the letter from the Department of State through as general correspondence thus resulting in the non-issuance of a receipt. We will monitor the contractor more closely in this regard.

Attorneys should fax inquiries concerning fee waiver receipts to Division V at (949) 389-3485. The inquiry must include a copy of the letter issued by the Department of State.

29. I-824s. 

A. We understand that the CSC is responsible for updating in the INS computer system information regarding all individuals admitted as immigrants at ports of entry. It seems as though the CSC is many months behind in entering this information into INS computers. As a result, the permanent residence status of someone having entered the U.S. with an immigrant visa after consular processing is not in INS computers for many months. As a result, following to join applications are being denied at Service Centers because the proof of permanent residency is not in the computer, even though a copy of the passport stamp showing lawful admission as a permanent resident of the principal applicant is provided. What, if anything is the CSC doing to reduce this backlog? Could the CSC issue a statement to the other Service Centers explaining the backlog, and suggest that an attorney certified I-551 stamp be sufficient documentation to approve the I-824? 

The CSC is responsible for scanning the immigrant visas from the Los Angeles and San Francisco ports of entry. There were significant backlogs in this workload, however, the backlog has been eliminated and this problem should be resolved.

A. If an applicant with a pending I-485 application gets married to a person abroad, where and when should the I-824 application for following to join be filed? 

Consulates may process a following to join visa when there is proof that the principal alien has been admitted to the United States. The level and kinds of documentation required is at the discretion of the State Department and the individual consulate offices.


Cite as “Posted on AILA InfoNet, Doc. No. 01120433 (November 15, 2003 ).”