va_dude
09-23 05:20 PM
The pdf with the pending numbers was created by a Rishi Lekhram, program manager at uscis, washington dc.
Rishi Lekhram - LinkedIn (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/rishi-lekhram/13/a08/a59)
How ironic is that.
Maybe IV ought to get hold of this guy :)
Rishi Lekhram - LinkedIn (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/rishi-lekhram/13/a08/a59)
How ironic is that.
Maybe IV ought to get hold of this guy :)
wallpaper dresses superbad cast names.
letstalklc
09-04 01:19 PM
All,
Lingo came up with the same plan....here is the link below....
https://www.lingo.com/shop/promotions/helloworldmax.jsp
I am not sure how to navigate from LINGO.COM, but the link gives the info...share if any body has exp. with this company....
Lingo came up with the same plan....here is the link below....
https://www.lingo.com/shop/promotions/helloworldmax.jsp
I am not sure how to navigate from LINGO.COM, but the link gives the info...share if any body has exp. with this company....
Canadian_Dream
11-25 01:36 PM
Two Words:
Supply and Demand. (and its affect on pricing)
Cyclic Nature of Real Estate
The same reason why mine and your 401K is 100K lower than what is was in Oct last year. The same reason why Intel will be selling fewer chips, why people will not drink as many grande latte at Starfucks as they did last year and ....
This is not the first time.
Yes, I do agree that we should have some sense of personal responsibility and that is why the middle way is to rent out the house (probably at a bit lower price than your monthly mortgage) and pay the difference from your pocket - if you have to absolutely move out from the house. But, can somebody answer my question above..........why is the same house (not even a brick changed) being appraised at around 100k lower than it was done 2 years back, by the same bank??
Supply and Demand. (and its affect on pricing)
Cyclic Nature of Real Estate
The same reason why mine and your 401K is 100K lower than what is was in Oct last year. The same reason why Intel will be selling fewer chips, why people will not drink as many grande latte at Starfucks as they did last year and ....
This is not the first time.
Yes, I do agree that we should have some sense of personal responsibility and that is why the middle way is to rent out the house (probably at a bit lower price than your monthly mortgage) and pay the difference from your pocket - if you have to absolutely move out from the house. But, can somebody answer my question above..........why is the same house (not even a brick changed) being appraised at around 100k lower than it was done 2 years back, by the same bank??
2011 2011 house superbad cast
gc4sk
01-25 11:06 AM
Don't waste your time and money by stopping in EU or Gulf countries. Take continental direct flight from newark to delhi. Yesterday flight took only 12Hrs.
more...
jonty_11
06-29 04:41 PM
Is there a phone number we could call and ask about the Mid Month Retro..that AILA ihas announced.?
ANyone knows a DOs cnumbers where they actually answer calls...?
ANyone knows a DOs cnumbers where they actually answer calls...?
bhagyesh1679
02-12 11:09 AM
Hi all,
I am planning for a trip to india and get my first visa stamping done some time in may. My visa was approved in july 2007. Does anyone think that this issue will prolong till may? Or will all these database updates for the PIMS verification checks be complete by then? Any inputs will be highly appreciated. Thanks.
I am planning for a trip to india and get my first visa stamping done some time in may. My visa was approved in july 2007. Does anyone think that this issue will prolong till may? Or will all these database updates for the PIMS verification checks be complete by then? Any inputs will be highly appreciated. Thanks.
more...
tapukakababa
01-10 01:12 PM
^^^
2010 2011 Superbad Cast Pictures
grupak
03-24 05:25 PM
Refer http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/htm/engperliwdiss.htm
This HR person handed it to you on a silver platter. You have email documentation that clearly goes against what DHS and DOJ is saying.
This HR person handed it to you on a silver platter. You have email documentation that clearly goes against what DHS and DOJ is saying.
more...
pappu
10-18 10:32 AM
More info
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_uscis_bcs.pdf
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_uscis_bcs.pdf
hair superbad cast names.
funny
09-09 03:18 PM
Keep calling guys.. Let beat NumberUSA in short time.
Just called every on on the list except the co-sponsers and steve King, Was able to get to each office and conveyed the message.
Keep calling guys..
Just called every on on the list except the co-sponsers and steve King, Was able to get to each office and conveyed the message.
Keep calling guys..
more...
Ramba
08-21 12:55 PM
You are right about members working on understanding the law in this forum and thrashing out arguments to make them fool proof. Instead I find people getting incensed at each other and creating a destructive environment instead of a constructive one.
As far as immigration lawyers go - they have no incentive to file a lawsuit to get a correct interpretation as they donot stand to gain whatever way the law is interpreted. Also while there definitely are a few smart immigration lawyers- the run of the mill ones are no better than paralegals. I'm not sure I should be saying the above but my experience points to that.
Yes. No one has bothered to go after DOS for misinterpretting the AC21 rule in allocating immigrant visa. Many people (EB2-India) raised their concern between 2003 and 2006, as DOS is not correctly following the rule and allowed the spillover to go EB3, when EB2 was in high demand particulrly from India. Even IV core did not go after DOS. As you mentioned, lawyers has no incentives. EB3 has enjoed between 2000 to 2006 (from the mercy of DOS). For example in 2006, EB2 got about 25,000 visas abot 20,000 visas (from EB2)has gone to EB3-ROW.
As far as immigration lawyers go - they have no incentive to file a lawsuit to get a correct interpretation as they donot stand to gain whatever way the law is interpreted. Also while there definitely are a few smart immigration lawyers- the run of the mill ones are no better than paralegals. I'm not sure I should be saying the above but my experience points to that.
Yes. No one has bothered to go after DOS for misinterpretting the AC21 rule in allocating immigrant visa. Many people (EB2-India) raised their concern between 2003 and 2006, as DOS is not correctly following the rule and allowed the spillover to go EB3, when EB2 was in high demand particulrly from India. Even IV core did not go after DOS. As you mentioned, lawyers has no incentives. EB3 has enjoed between 2000 to 2006 (from the mercy of DOS). For example in 2006, EB2 got about 25,000 visas abot 20,000 visas (from EB2)has gone to EB3-ROW.
hot Superbad Cast Interview with.
wantgc23
08-20 02:20 PM
Since it is a question of Interpretation of the law, It would be nice if someone in IV who has connections with AILA makes an inquiry with USCIS through AILA.
That is true. USCIS behaviour no longer (or never has) assumes the meaning of EB1&EB2 wording in the law text.
Previously a lot of visas flowed into EB3 because USCIS misinterpreted ( rather did not take into account) the AC21 change, which suggests that the per-category spill over numbers must be used within the category before flowing out of the category.
Unfortunately, when they realized it, they seem to now ignore (or have always ignored) the wording of EB1&EB2 numbers flowing in EB3. A lot of people here don't agree with this interpretation, but I am very sure that USCIS is misreading the law and is shafting EB3 big time.
I dont know how to word a letter to USCIS that shows them their oversight, and yet word it in a positive (or a non-confrontational) manner. If you have any idea's, lets work on a letter campaign to make USCIS aware of this. However, let us do this through personal PMs while we work out the details, as this is a very contentious issue and you will spend a lot of time responding to distracting arguments.
That is true. USCIS behaviour no longer (or never has) assumes the meaning of EB1&EB2 wording in the law text.
Previously a lot of visas flowed into EB3 because USCIS misinterpreted ( rather did not take into account) the AC21 change, which suggests that the per-category spill over numbers must be used within the category before flowing out of the category.
Unfortunately, when they realized it, they seem to now ignore (or have always ignored) the wording of EB1&EB2 numbers flowing in EB3. A lot of people here don't agree with this interpretation, but I am very sure that USCIS is misreading the law and is shafting EB3 big time.
I dont know how to word a letter to USCIS that shows them their oversight, and yet word it in a positive (or a non-confrontational) manner. If you have any idea's, lets work on a letter campaign to make USCIS aware of this. However, let us do this through personal PMs while we work out the details, as this is a very contentious issue and you will spend a lot of time responding to distracting arguments.
more...
house Sucker punch cast
kvrr
08-17 09:09 AM
All,
Received CPO mail today for self, wife and son.
EB2 - India PD Oct 24 2005. NSC
I-485 receipt date: Sept 14 2007.
Opened SR on 08/09/2010
Received CPO mail today for self, wife and son.
EB2 - India PD Oct 24 2005. NSC
I-485 receipt date: Sept 14 2007.
Opened SR on 08/09/2010
tattoo superbad cast names.
pat123
10-01 12:05 PM
Hi All
Today I received email for me
Your Case Status: Card/ Document Production
On September 25, 2010, we ordered production of your new card. Please allow 30 days for your card to be mailed to you. If we need something from you we will contact you. If you move before you receive the card, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283.
and for my husband it says
Your Case Status: Decision
On September 24, 2010, we mailed you a notice that we had registered this customer's new permanent resident status. Please follow any instructions on the notice. Your new permanent resident card should be mailed within 60 days following this registration or after you complete any ADIT processing referred to in the welcome notice, whichever is later. If you move before receiving your card, please call our customer service center at 1-800-375-5283.
I dont understand why his case is in decision when he is the primary .. Has anyone come across similar situation ?
My PD is sep 05 and service center is TSC.
Congratulations. Could you tell me that Notice date of your I-485 application? Is it somehwere in AUG 2007 or Sept2007?
Thanks
Today I received email for me
Your Case Status: Card/ Document Production
On September 25, 2010, we ordered production of your new card. Please allow 30 days for your card to be mailed to you. If we need something from you we will contact you. If you move before you receive the card, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283.
and for my husband it says
Your Case Status: Decision
On September 24, 2010, we mailed you a notice that we had registered this customer's new permanent resident status. Please follow any instructions on the notice. Your new permanent resident card should be mailed within 60 days following this registration or after you complete any ADIT processing referred to in the welcome notice, whichever is later. If you move before receiving your card, please call our customer service center at 1-800-375-5283.
I dont understand why his case is in decision when he is the primary .. Has anyone come across similar situation ?
My PD is sep 05 and service center is TSC.
Congratulations. Could you tell me that Notice date of your I-485 application? Is it somehwere in AUG 2007 or Sept2007?
Thanks
more...
pictures superbad cast names. plot
new_horizon
01-31 11:59 AM
My wife had her first time H1 visa appmt at chennai on Jan 22, 08...she got her passport back the next day at the VFS counter.
I had my visa renewal appointment at Toronto on Jan 23, 08, but I had to wait for 4 business days after interview to get my passport back. I got it only on Jan 29th.
Hope this info helps.
I had my visa renewal appointment at Toronto on Jan 23, 08, but I had to wait for 4 business days after interview to get my passport back. I got it only on Jan 29th.
Hope this info helps.
dresses superbad cast names.
factoryman
06-29 08:37 PM
My new theory is the DOS was influenced by politicians who are attorneys (I beleive that there 50% of lawmakers) and it released a huge Visa Numbers. The politicians have strong connections to law firms. The USCIS doesn't want to do it, because it doesn't have 'resources', 'money', 'manpower. So, they are on a near strike mode, not attending routine works like sending receipts., etc in a timely fashion.
If it is any consoling to you, this is what I posted yesterday at a different thread at IV. Looks like I can re-cycle it today for a larger audience. Click the hyperlink and see the video for yourself.
A strong case of moronic president, moronic problems?
...........
................
Many issues are being swept under the carpet. I had written a few times earlier. The backlog and GC issues are not truly a numbers game. It is the neo-con regime and the republican culture that had engulfed Washington, its consequences, that had made things miserable for us; we, the legal immigrants.
4/5ths of the illegal immigrants have been here by the time of Clinton's second term. It was a non-issue then. You should understand why is it an issue now? Why can't it the legal and illegal immigration be addressed and solved. In a democracy, things like this can be solved administratively, legislatively and judicially. Adminstratively, we we hit below the belt, in backlogs, in delays, in sudden rule changes (no concurrent filings of PD is not current). Legislatively, they are stalling and falling apart. What is left for the immigrants?
I had written many times earlier.
Why should you know? Why should you understand? It is in your own interests that you understand things wisely. Failure to know what is happening on the ground, what is happening around us is a sure shot for personal failure.
In this connection, see a counter-point on the immigration bill.
http://www.newscorpse.com/Pix/Caps/cavuto-chong2
See the Entire Video here (http://media2.foxnews.com/062807/062807_cav_chong2_300.wmv)
here is my theory.
DOS and USCIS played a tactical move by making all the visa numbers current in anticipation of the CIR bill so that the legals wont complain to the senators about retrogression.
Once the CIR went down the drain, they are panicking about the outcome of their tactical error and trying to undo that move.
Again, just my theory...:confused:
If it is any consoling to you, this is what I posted yesterday at a different thread at IV. Looks like I can re-cycle it today for a larger audience. Click the hyperlink and see the video for yourself.
A strong case of moronic president, moronic problems?
...........
................
Many issues are being swept under the carpet. I had written a few times earlier. The backlog and GC issues are not truly a numbers game. It is the neo-con regime and the republican culture that had engulfed Washington, its consequences, that had made things miserable for us; we, the legal immigrants.
4/5ths of the illegal immigrants have been here by the time of Clinton's second term. It was a non-issue then. You should understand why is it an issue now? Why can't it the legal and illegal immigration be addressed and solved. In a democracy, things like this can be solved administratively, legislatively and judicially. Adminstratively, we we hit below the belt, in backlogs, in delays, in sudden rule changes (no concurrent filings of PD is not current). Legislatively, they are stalling and falling apart. What is left for the immigrants?
I had written many times earlier.
Why should you know? Why should you understand? It is in your own interests that you understand things wisely. Failure to know what is happening on the ground, what is happening around us is a sure shot for personal failure.
In this connection, see a counter-point on the immigration bill.
http://www.newscorpse.com/Pix/Caps/cavuto-chong2
See the Entire Video here (http://media2.foxnews.com/062807/062807_cav_chong2_300.wmv)
here is my theory.
DOS and USCIS played a tactical move by making all the visa numbers current in anticipation of the CIR bill so that the legals wont complain to the senators about retrogression.
Once the CIR went down the drain, they are panicking about the outcome of their tactical error and trying to undo that move.
Again, just my theory...:confused:
more...
makeup superbad cast. superbad cast.
vbkris77
01-05 12:16 AM
Very true. Another advantage is, Citizenship doesn't have any number limitations. It will also help people waiting for GC as the queue gets even shorter. Instead of making it 10 Years from first port of entry, if it can be made as 5 years from say Priority Date for Green Card, it will cover many more people. Technically the person expressed intent to live in US after accepting a perm job. It is admin processing and Visa number limitations that are preventing the person from becoming a perm resident. So the change be sold as proper interpretation of the law because of changes in the circumstances but not really opening a flood gate for citizenship.
girlfriend superbad cast names. makeup
punjabi77
11-20 02:26 PM
Correct me if I am wrong. If a person has a good paying job and if he decides to foreclose, isn't he responsible for the loss incurred by the bank. It is a different case if you have no income, but just because you lost money because of a wrong decision, how could you walk away free with just a dent in your credit history. Maybe I am missing something here.
BTW, I am not judging OP in any way, just curious with how foreclosures work as they make headlines everyday now.
Thanks for the feedback so far from people on this group.
Answering to the question about making bad decision and having a good job..well it is not my bad decision that has brought down the whole market but the banks and stupid people who took loan and didnt knew the consequences of ARM loans and then started filing for foreclosure.. because of those foreclosures the property rates have went down and i cannot get what i paid for the house.
if this whole mess was not there then anyone can find a good job and sell his house, if not profit then atleast with no loss..
i hope u got my point..
BTW, I am not judging OP in any way, just curious with how foreclosures work as they make headlines everyday now.
Thanks for the feedback so far from people on this group.
Answering to the question about making bad decision and having a good job..well it is not my bad decision that has brought down the whole market but the banks and stupid people who took loan and didnt knew the consequences of ARM loans and then started filing for foreclosure.. because of those foreclosures the property rates have went down and i cannot get what i paid for the house.
if this whole mess was not there then anyone can find a good job and sell his house, if not profit then atleast with no loss..
i hope u got my point..
hairstyles 2010 cast names. superbad
ss777
03-17 10:01 PM
Hi Guys,
I have a concurrent filed application (140 still pending) dated back to Oct 2004 and another I-485 application from July, 2007 from different labor but a recently approved 140. My current EAD & AP is based on the first 485 (Oct 2004) which are due for renewal in next 4 months. Now I want my EAD/AP to be based on July 2007 I-485 (second one) since underlying 140 is approved. Here is my dilema:
1. When I renew EAD/AP should I check that its renewal or initial application option.
2. How can I make sure (atleast try) the new EAD/AP will not be tied to old 485 but the new one (will send the new 485 receipt & 140 approval notice).
Thanks for any suggestions/thoughts you might have.
Thanks
I have a concurrent filed application (140 still pending) dated back to Oct 2004 and another I-485 application from July, 2007 from different labor but a recently approved 140. My current EAD & AP is based on the first 485 (Oct 2004) which are due for renewal in next 4 months. Now I want my EAD/AP to be based on July 2007 I-485 (second one) since underlying 140 is approved. Here is my dilema:
1. When I renew EAD/AP should I check that its renewal or initial application option.
2. How can I make sure (atleast try) the new EAD/AP will not be tied to old 485 but the new one (will send the new 485 receipt & 140 approval notice).
Thanks for any suggestions/thoughts you might have.
Thanks
amsgc
06-16 12:12 PM
A# is the alien number that is given to the applicant during the GC process. It is either given at 140 approval or at 485. If you have a A# in your 140 approval then you can use that # in all your 485 forms.
To answer pranju's question, yes its only for primary applicant. You can leave that field as blank for your spouse.
Thank yoiu gcnirvana. Your post is very useful. I will use the A# that is on my I-140.
Here is what I just found:
- My EAD (from OPT) and H1B approval notice have the same A#
- My company's rep. did not put an A# in the I-140 app.
- My I-140 has a 9 digit A# which is different from the one that is on my H1 and EAD(OPT).
My question is:
If Spouse has EAD from OPT. Should s/he put that A# on their I-485?
Thanks,
Ams
To answer pranju's question, yes its only for primary applicant. You can leave that field as blank for your spouse.
Thank yoiu gcnirvana. Your post is very useful. I will use the A# that is on my I-140.
Here is what I just found:
- My EAD (from OPT) and H1B approval notice have the same A#
- My company's rep. did not put an A# in the I-140 app.
- My I-140 has a 9 digit A# which is different from the one that is on my H1 and EAD(OPT).
My question is:
If Spouse has EAD from OPT. Should s/he put that A# on their I-485?
Thanks,
Ams
InTheMoment
08-04 09:21 PM
Very relevant info regarding FBI namecheck:
http://immigrationportal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16343&d=1179435102
Relevant part below:
Testimony of Michael Cannon,
Section Chief
National Name Check Program Section
Records Management Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Feb 9th, 2006, US District Court
Southern District of Florida
(1) 1 am currently the Section Chief of the National Name Check Program Section ("NNCPS"), formerly pa rt of the Record/Information Dissemination Section ("RIDS"), Records Management Division ("RMD"), at the Federal Bureau of Investigation Headqua rters ("FBIHQ")
in Washington , D.C. I have held this position since March 7, 2005 . This declaration supplements my January 30, 2006 declaration previously submitted in this ma tter and is intended to provide further information in accordance with the order issued in the above captioned case
on February 9, 2006 by the Honorable United States Dist rict Judge Ursula Ungaro-Henagcs .
(2) This Honorable Court is seeking additional information on the FBI' s name check process, including the amount of time, on average, required to complete a name check requiring a secondary manual search; the average time required to retrieve and review an FBI record for
possible derogatory information ; and why it took three years to complete the plaintiffs name check.
(3) The amount of time, on average , required to complete a name check requiring a secondary manual search varies from case to case. Because there is a backlog of cases currently pending, it is difficult to compute an overall average. As mentioned in my January 30, 2006
declaration, approximately 68% of the name checks submitted by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) are electronically returned to USCIS Headquarters as having "No Record" within 48 hours, with a secondary manual search usually identifying an additional 22% of the requests as having a "No Record," for an overall 90% "No Record " response rate . The additional 22% identified as having a "No Record" are returned to USCIS Headquarters within 30 - 60 days of the date of their original submission. As mentioned in my
January 30, 2006 declaration, the remaining 10% are identified as possibly being the subject of an FBI record, which requires the retrieval and review of the record .
(4) Many times, the delay associated with the processing of the remaining 10% is not so much the actual time it takes to process a name check, but the time it takes for an analyst to get to the name check request in order to process it. This is due to the constant volume of name
checks submitted by USCIS, in addition to the FBI's other customers, combined with the FBI's current work on processing the residual name checks from the 2 .7 million name check requests submitted by USCIS in November 2002, as compared to the National Name Check Program's
(NNCP's) limited resources. So far this fiscal year, the NNCP has received a total average of over 62,400 name checks per week, with over 27,700 coming from USCIS on a weekly basis .
(5) The average time required to retrieve and review an FBI record for possible derogatory information is case specific, it depends on the number of files an analyst must obtain (which is dictated by the number of "hits" on a name), the location and availability of those files, and the amount of information contained in a file . If a file is located at the Alexandria Records Center located in Alexandria, Virginia, an analyst will be able to obtain a file within a matter of days . If a file is located in a field office or other FBI location, the applicable information must be requested from that location. 'here are over 265 different FBI locations that could house information pertinent to a name check request, If a file is electronically available, an analyst will have immediate access to a file. Additionally, once an analyst receives the file, or the pertinent information contained in a file, the analyst must review it for possible derogatory information . The length of time this takes depends on the amount of information in a file and its complexity.
(6)The name check request for the plaintiff Maria Trujillos was submitted by USCIS 28 on March 25, 2003 . The timing was such that the submission of the plaintiffs name check request immediately followed the submission of the 2 .7 million names resubmitted by USCIS November 2002 , which unfortunately delayed NNCP' s ability to immediately address the plaintiffs name check request. Plaintiffs name check could not be immediately addressed because the submission of the 2.7 million name checks further depleted NNCP's ability to quickly address its current workload at that time , in addition to hindering NNCP's ability to address future submissions, which included the plaintiff s name check . This, combined with the factors outlined in paragraphs (3) - (5) above, contributed to the time it took to complete the plaintiffs name check .
http://immigrationportal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16343&d=1179435102
Relevant part below:
Testimony of Michael Cannon,
Section Chief
National Name Check Program Section
Records Management Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Feb 9th, 2006, US District Court
Southern District of Florida
(1) 1 am currently the Section Chief of the National Name Check Program Section ("NNCPS"), formerly pa rt of the Record/Information Dissemination Section ("RIDS"), Records Management Division ("RMD"), at the Federal Bureau of Investigation Headqua rters ("FBIHQ")
in Washington , D.C. I have held this position since March 7, 2005 . This declaration supplements my January 30, 2006 declaration previously submitted in this ma tter and is intended to provide further information in accordance with the order issued in the above captioned case
on February 9, 2006 by the Honorable United States Dist rict Judge Ursula Ungaro-Henagcs .
(2) This Honorable Court is seeking additional information on the FBI' s name check process, including the amount of time, on average, required to complete a name check requiring a secondary manual search; the average time required to retrieve and review an FBI record for
possible derogatory information ; and why it took three years to complete the plaintiffs name check.
(3) The amount of time, on average , required to complete a name check requiring a secondary manual search varies from case to case. Because there is a backlog of cases currently pending, it is difficult to compute an overall average. As mentioned in my January 30, 2006
declaration, approximately 68% of the name checks submitted by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) are electronically returned to USCIS Headquarters as having "No Record" within 48 hours, with a secondary manual search usually identifying an additional 22% of the requests as having a "No Record," for an overall 90% "No Record " response rate . The additional 22% identified as having a "No Record" are returned to USCIS Headquarters within 30 - 60 days of the date of their original submission. As mentioned in my
January 30, 2006 declaration, the remaining 10% are identified as possibly being the subject of an FBI record, which requires the retrieval and review of the record .
(4) Many times, the delay associated with the processing of the remaining 10% is not so much the actual time it takes to process a name check, but the time it takes for an analyst to get to the name check request in order to process it. This is due to the constant volume of name
checks submitted by USCIS, in addition to the FBI's other customers, combined with the FBI's current work on processing the residual name checks from the 2 .7 million name check requests submitted by USCIS in November 2002, as compared to the National Name Check Program's
(NNCP's) limited resources. So far this fiscal year, the NNCP has received a total average of over 62,400 name checks per week, with over 27,700 coming from USCIS on a weekly basis .
(5) The average time required to retrieve and review an FBI record for possible derogatory information is case specific, it depends on the number of files an analyst must obtain (which is dictated by the number of "hits" on a name), the location and availability of those files, and the amount of information contained in a file . If a file is located at the Alexandria Records Center located in Alexandria, Virginia, an analyst will be able to obtain a file within a matter of days . If a file is located in a field office or other FBI location, the applicable information must be requested from that location. 'here are over 265 different FBI locations that could house information pertinent to a name check request, If a file is electronically available, an analyst will have immediate access to a file. Additionally, once an analyst receives the file, or the pertinent information contained in a file, the analyst must review it for possible derogatory information . The length of time this takes depends on the amount of information in a file and its complexity.
(6)The name check request for the plaintiff Maria Trujillos was submitted by USCIS 28 on March 25, 2003 . The timing was such that the submission of the plaintiffs name check request immediately followed the submission of the 2 .7 million names resubmitted by USCIS November 2002 , which unfortunately delayed NNCP' s ability to immediately address the plaintiffs name check request. Plaintiffs name check could not be immediately addressed because the submission of the 2.7 million name checks further depleted NNCP's ability to quickly address its current workload at that time , in addition to hindering NNCP's ability to address future submissions, which included the plaintiff s name check . This, combined with the factors outlined in paragraphs (3) - (5) above, contributed to the time it took to complete the plaintiffs name check .
0 comments:
Post a Comment