INS Advises on NSC, LA District Office

US Department of Justice
Immigration and Naturalization Service
425 I Street, NW
Washington, DC 20536

Steven M. Ladik
Attorney at Law
Gardere & Wynne, L.L.P.
3000 Thanksgiving Tower
1601 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75201-4761

August 23, 1995

Dear Steve:

This replies to your letter of July 18, 1995, which sets forth a number of issues that your members feel are particularly pressing.

Before responding to the specific concerns raised in your letter, let me take this opportunity to say that my staff and I are looking forward to working closely with you and your committee to try to resolve some of the day-to-day problems encountered in your dealings with the Service Centers and INS district offices, before they become major issues. In order to better assist us in accomplishing this, we ask that you impress upon your membership the importance of referring all such problems, especially those with potential national impact, to us through your committee.

This having been said, let me attempt to answer your questions. Regarding the backlog in I-140s at the Nebraska Service Center, while statistical data currently available to us reflects that processing times for I-140 visa petitions had increased to an average of approximately 120 days in April, May, and June of this year, they have shown some improvement for the month of July. According to the latest data available, I-140 petitions are presently being processed at the Nebraska Center within 60 to 90 days of receipt. We anticipate even further improvement in these and other processing times once additional positions which were recently allocated have been filled.

As far as the difficulties encountered by some former clients of Lyons and Bajaj, the New York law firm that was involved in filing a large number of fraudulent Legalization applications, please be advised that we have reviewed all of the files of persons who were suspected of having obtained their lawful permanent residence through the submission of fraudulent applications which were prepared by this law firm. Based upon this review, two lists were compiled, one containing the file numbers of applicants who appear to be amenable to rescission proceedings, and a second listing file numbers of alien residents who do not appear to have been involved in the fraud scheme. We have forwarded both of these lists to the District Director in Rome, Italy, with a request that he, in turn, send the lists to the American Embassy in New Delhi, India.

In doing so, we have advised the Embassy that, since there are currently no provisions in law or regulation which provide for the revocation of the approval of a visa petition based solely upon the suspicion that the petitioner obtained his or her status through fraud, those visa petitioners where the petitioner's case is earmarked for rescission cannot be returned to the approving office for revocation until, and unless, the petitioner's status has actually been rescinded.

While, we have been advised that some consular posts in India are delaying the processing of immigrant visas in those cases where the petitioner had any connection whatsoever with Lyons and Bajaj, even if the petitioner's file number does not appear on our list of cases where rescission is recommended, this is a matter which rests beyond our purview. We suggest that you contact the Visa Office of the Department of State in such cases.

The final issue raised pertains to the apparent perception by some AILA members that the Los Angeles District is re-adjudicating all previously approved I-140 visa petitions. We have raised this concern to district management in Los Angeles who advise that, effective July 1, 1995, they have begun to waive adjustment interviews for applicants who are the beneficiaries of approved I- 140 petitions and who are working for the same employer they worked for as nonimmigrants. This procedure should accelerate the adjudication of a large number of adjustment applications which are based on approved I-140 petitions. Of course, if the Los Angeles Office sees the need for an interview in a particular case, it may exercise that option.

Additionally, approved I-140 petitions which form the basis for adjustment of status may be examined by the interviewing officer to ensure that they were properly adjudicated. If AILA feels this scrutiny in excessive in the Los Angeles District, we suggest that the issue be taken up with local management there. It should be mentioned that this situation may cease to exist once regulations are published later this year to allow adjustment applications to be filed and adjudicated at our Service Centers as a part of the expansion of the Direct Mail program.

In closing, let me say again that I look forward to working closely with you and your group in the future and to seeing you at the national liaison meeting this fall.

Sincerely,

Michael L. Aytes
Acting Assistant Commissioner,
Adjudications