ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Angelo Paparelli on Dysfunctional Government

Do Immigration Fee Revenues Drive Justice at the USCIS?

Rate this Entry

Immigration lawyers, including this blogger, have attended liaison meetings with the USCIS California Service Center and its predecessor agency, INS, for decades.  These meetings have been periodically convened (typically on at least a quarterly basis) since the agency was first housed, decades ago, in San Ysidro CA just inside the U.S. border with Tijuana (the facility was then known as the INS Western Adjudication Center -- hence the answer to the trivia question of why receipt numbers for this office begin with "WAC"). 


In the 1980s, lawyers and agency leaders alike could look out the WAC's window at the border and literally see foreign citizens assemble, as dusk approached, preparing to hop the easily surmounted fence.  Yet, even then INS officials could appreciate the difference between legal immigration and illegality.  We were allies in a common effort to make the legal immigration system work fairly. 


If trends developed suggesting problems in adjudications or clear Service errors, the old INS and many previous CSC directors and assistant center directors would invite the submission by immigration lawyers of sample cases so that supervisors could maintain quality control. Indeed, one of the grounds for requesting and receiving an expedited adjudication, according to the CSC policy guidelines, was "clear service error" in a prior decision. 


At Wednesday's CSC "external stakeholders" liaison meeting, however, the published answer to item # 2 on the formal agenda showed that the times clearly have changed.  Citing 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(5) which authorizes the USCIS to reopen or reconsider a decision at the instance of the agency adjudicator, item # 2 asked how an applicant for an immigration benefit could invoke the regulation where the initial decision involves an obvious mistake by USCIS.  The succinct answer -- file a motion with the proper fee.  The fee for a motion to reopen or reconsider is $585. 


To be sure, a footer on the published minutes made clear that the answers provided are merely the individual opinions of the officials present at the liaison meeting and do not necessarily reflect the policies and interpretations of USCIS. Still, in these straitened times, it sure seems like price gouging when an agency with the word "Services" in its title appoints officers who cannot acknowledge their own clear mistakes without shaking down the public by demanding almost six Ben Franklins.

Submit "Do Immigration Fee Revenues Drive Justice at the USCIS?" to Facebook Submit "Do Immigration Fee Revenues Drive Justice at the USCIS?" to Twitter Submit "Do Immigration Fee Revenues Drive Justice at the USCIS?" to Google Submit "Do Immigration Fee Revenues Drive Justice at the USCIS?" to StumbleUpon Submit "Do Immigration Fee Revenues Drive Justice at the USCIS?" to Reddit Submit "Do Immigration Fee Revenues Drive Justice at the USCIS?" to Digg Submit "Do Immigration Fee Revenues Drive Justice at the USCIS?" to del.icio.us

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. Remlo's Avatar
    I also attended the meeting and was excited to hear about the USCIS customer service tracking system. NSCS and the follow up mailboxes are a way to ensure that the whole public recieves equal customer service, not just AILA or other special interest groups with powerful lobbies. The new system tracks the number of inquiries and adequacy of responses (to be used as training and quality assurance). It appears to be a good venue to bring issues of "clear service error". Frankly, I think it is better and more fair than the exclusive liaisons developed inthe past for private attorneys. But maybe some who made their living by having that special access won't agree . . .
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: