CSS/LULAC Late amnesty Investigation

[Gussan]

My questionnaire was approved by Vermont Service Center on 2001. Then I was instructed to file I-687 application for status as a temporary residents which I did in January 2002, also I applied and received my work authorization document.

On July 2003 I received a letter telling me that my application was transfer to Chicago INS office for processing. after that I never heard from them.

I called the INS too many time to check the status of my case and always I was told it is still pending.

Last week I call the national customer service and I talked with immigration officer to check the status of my application, the officer told me my application is under investigation and still they did not finish with it.

I was surprised to hear that statement from the immigration officer about my application.

My question is why is my application is under investigation, they did not even interview me yet. They did not tell me why they investigate my application.

How I can find out why they investigate my application? How long do you think this will take? What do you think I should do next?

Do you think this is a random investigation or every CSS/LULAC applicant applied at Texas Center should go through this investigation?

Please give me your thought and feedback and what I should do.

Thanks.

[Gussan]

My questionnaire was approved by Vermont Service Center on 2001. Then I was instructed to file I-687 application for status as a temporary residents which I did in January 2002, also I applied and received my work authorization document.

On July 2003 I received a letter telling me that my application was transfer to Chicago INS office for processing. after that I never heard from them.

I called the INS too many time to check the status of my case and always I was told it is still pending.

Last week I call the national customer service and I talked with immigration officer to check the status of my application, the officer told me my application is under investigation and still they did not finish with it.

I was surprised to hear that statement from the immigration officer about my application.

My question is why is my application is under investigation, they did not even interview me yet. They did not tell me why they investigate my application.

How I can find out why they investigate my application? How long do you think this will take? What do you think I should do next?

Do you think this is a random investigation or every CSS/LULAC applicant applied at Texas Center should go through this investigation?

Please give me your thought and feedback and what I should do.

Thanks.

[AZ]

Gussan:

Basically your file is sitting some where collecting dust like many ohters. Under investigation means nothing. basically, when you call the customer service, they look at online status of your case which you can do by your self, and if the message says case pending or under process, he or she decided to give it a new twist and called it under investigation. If you live in the chicago area, i suggest that you can go to the immigration office and request the status of your case by filling out a form. If you are not in chicago area, I would recommend you writing a status inquiry of your case.
Best of luck.

[LittleOne]

Gussan,
Please refer to the Center for Human Rights homepage at (http://legalizationusa.org/lateamnesty/) and go the the late amnesty settlement page. I have posted below a portion of the FAQ page from that site which specifically addresses your situation and recommends that you re-apply for benefits under the settlement as USCIS is given specific requiments by the courts on how they must adjudicate these cases:

Late Amnesty Frequently Asked Questions
Who is covered under the CSS settlement?

Individuals who meet the following requirements will be able to obtain lawful status under the

CSS settlement:

You lived in the United States unlawfully from before January 1, 1982, to a date between May 5, 1987, and May 4, 1988, when you went to an office of the Immigration Service or a Qualified Designated entity to apply for legalization.
You visited an INS office or Qualified Designated Entity between May 5, 1987, and May 4, 1988, to apply for legalization.
The INS or QDE told you that you were ineligible for legalization because you had traveled outside the United States without INS permission. You do NOT need to have previously "registered" as a CSS class member. However, IF you did NOT apply for a CSS work permit, then you must also have had a complete legalization application and fee when you went in to apply for legalization. If you ever attempted to get a CSS work permit--even if the INS refused to give you a work permit--then it is NOT required that you had a complete application and fee when you went in to apply for legalization.

Persons who didn't visit an INS or QDE office during the May 1987-May 88 application year do not receive any benefits under the settlement.

Who is covered under the Newman (LULAC) settlement?

Individuals who meet the following requirements will be able to obtain lawful status under the Newman(LULAC) settlement:

You lived in the United States unlawfully from before January 1, 1982, to a date between May 5, 1987, and May 4, 1988, when you went to an office of the Immigration Service or a Qualified Designated entity to apply for legalization. You visited an INS office or Qualified Designated Entity between May 5, 1987, and May 4, 1988, to apply for legalization. The INS or QDE told you that you were ineligible for legalization because you had traveled outside the United States and come back using a tourist, student, or other re-ntry document.
You do NOT need to have previously "registered" as a Newman(LULAC) class member. However, IF you did NOT apply for a Newman(LULAC) work permit, then you must also have had a complete legalization application and fee when you went in to apply for legalization. If you ever attempted to get a Newman(LULAC) work permit--even if the INS refused to give you a work permit--then it is NOT required that you had a complete application and fee when you went in to apply for legalization.

Persons who didn't visit an INS or QDE office during the May 1987-May 88 application year do not receive any benefits under the settlement.

I (or my relative or friend) no longer lives in the United States. May I (or he or she) still apply under the CSS or Newman (LULAC) settlements?
So far, the government has "interpreted" the settlement to say no, that people are not entitled to apply from abroad for CSS and Newman (LULAC) settlement benefits. As the lawyers for CSS and Newman (LULAC) class members, we read the settlement differently. The Center believes a strong argument can be made that people have a right to legalize from abroad.

We are recommending that persons who are otherwise qualified under the settlement should not let the one-year application period go by without applying simply because they no longer live in the United States. By applying from abroad, they will preserve their rights under the settlement. In the event the court decides that people may apply under the settlement from abroad, which if may very likely do, you do not want to be lose your chance to obtain lawful U.S. residence because you did not apply during the one-year application period.

How do my rights under the CSS and Newman (LULAC) settlements relate to my rights under the LIFE Act?

Class members' rights under the settlement are independent of and in addition to their right to obtain legal status under the LIFE Act.

Many persons who have rights under the CSS and Newman (LULAC) settlements have already applied to adjust their status under the LIFE Act. Unless the CIS has approved your LIFE Act application, however, we recommend that you apply as well under the CSS and Newman (LULAC) settlements. This is why:

The Center continues to receive reports that CIS is being very hard on LIFE Act applicants. Among other reasons, the CIS is reportedly denying LIFE Act applications because the applicant cannot produce "original" proof of residence, such as original rent receipts, pay stubs, and the like. Many LIFE Act applicants are also being issued denials or "notices of deficiency" because they cannot pass an in-person **** examination on U.S. civics and English. In many other cases, the CIS has simply delayed deciding LIFE Act applications, and there is no way to know when the agency will get around to making a decision.

The CSS and Newman (LULAC) settlements offers class members several important advantages over the LIFE Act: The settlements provide clear guidance as to how and when the CIS must process class members' legalization applications. The settlement provides that class members may establish eligibility for legalization by way of declarations, and not only by original documents. The settlement also provides class members the right to appeal to a "special master," a judicial officer with the authority to correct the CIS's errors in the event the agency does not decide a class member's legalization application promptly, fairly, and in accordance with the settlement's guidelines.

Also, an applicant who legalizes under the CSS and Newman (LULAC) settlements will not have to meet the English and U.S. history requirement until 12-18 months after the CIS grants them temporary residence.

There are also some substantive advantages to legalizing under the settlement, particularly CSS and Newman (LULAC) class members with children who lack lawful immigration status. CSS class members who legalize under the settlement can apply for "family unity" benefits (work authorization and protection against deportation) for their children and spouses. In contrast to LIFE Act family unity, the children of class members who legalize under the settlement will not lose family unity status when they turn 21 years old. Children lose their family unity benefits when they turn 21 if their parents legalized under the LIFE Act instead of the CSS and Newman (LULAC) settlements.

What about CSS and Newman (LULAC) class members with pending or approved legalization questionnaires?

During 1999-2000 the former INS operated a "legalization questionnaire" program. Under this program, individuals filed legalization questionnaires with the INS. These questionnaires were intended to allow the INS to determine whether the individual had been "front-desked": that is, that he or she tendered a complete legalization application and fee to the INS during the 1987-88 application year and had been turned away. If the INS approved an individual's questionnaire, he or she was instructed to a file legalization application with the INS Service Center in Texas.

A court judgment in the related LULAC class action required the INS to open the legalization questionnaire program to LULAC class members, but the agency voluntarily extended it to CSS and Zambrano class members, and indeed, to anyone at all who claimed that he or she had been front-desked during the 1987-88 amnesty application year. The INS stopped taking new legalization questionnaires in February 2000, but many questionnaires, as well as legalization applications filed in Texas, have never been decided. There is no way of knowing when or if the CIS decide these applications.

We have no way of forcing the INS to adjudicate CSS and Newman (LULAC) class members' legalization questionnaires or legalization applications filed with the INS Texas Service Center. We accordingly recommend that CSS and Newman (LULAC) class members apply under the settlement even though they have pending legalization questionnaires or have filed form I-687 legalization applications with the INS's Texas Service Center.

The CSS and Newman (LULAC) settlements offer class members several important advantages over the legalization questionnaire program: The settlement provides binding guidance as to how and when the CIS must process class members' legalization applications. The settlement provides that class members may establish eligibility for legalization by way of declarations, and not only by original documents. The settlement also provides class members the right to appeal to a "special master," a judicial officer with the authority to correct the CIS's errors in the event the agency does not decide a class member's legalization application promptly, fairly, and in accordance with the settlement's guidelines.

What is the status of CSS and Newman (LULAC) work permits?
The CIS remains obliged to renew CSS and Newman (LULAC) class members' work permits. Class members without a work permit will receive one once they file under the CSS and Newman (LULAC) settlements so long as their legalization applications appear to meet the requirements for legalization. If you have problems renewing or obtaining a CSS or Newman (LULAC) work permit, please advise the Center by email to amnestycoordinator@centerforhumanrights.org.

[Gussan]

Thank you AZ for your reply. There is big difference between (case pending or under process) and (under investigation). I checked USCIS website and fond case under investigation means the immigration officer who want to adjudicate you case suspect a fraud in the application or the applicant not entitled for the immigration benefit sought. May be another people or experts can explain or tell us more about case investigation subject.

AZ: when you went to Chicago immigration office to request the status of your case, did they give you any useful or helpful information about your case, were you able to discuss the issue concerning your case with them or it's one way street, how long it took them to tell you the status of your case after the inquiry?
I read in your earlier post that your case denied and you appealed it, any new news concerning your case after the appeals. Did you apply for the new Amnesty settlement or you still waiting for the outcome of your LIFE case? Do you know any of successful Life Legalization appeals case?
Thank you for your kind attention.

[AZ]

Hi Gussan:

Yes I went to the chicago office about year and a half ago. basically you fill out a form and meet with one of the customer service person. If they can't find your info on their computer, they will tell you that you will hear from them. In my case I revceived a 2nd interview notice within a week after making the inquiry so i don't know if it was the coincidence or what. In any event, interview went fine and the interviewer asked me to submit new finger prints because the first one was already a year old. After going through all that ****, I received a intent to deny letter which I appealed August 5th of 2003. Today is the 1st aniversary of that and I haven't heard from them.

I called my attorney few days ago to ask him to request a status on my case and he said that they are not responding to any inquiries and he wanted me to apply under the new settlement which I'm going to do any way by my self.

In your case, I still think that "under investigation" is a bunch of ****. They just want to delay these cases as long as they can.

Best of luck and keep me posted.

AZ

[AZ]

The deleted word is c-r-a-p. I don't know what's wrong with that.

[Gussan]

To AZ: I filled inquiry six months ago and I still did not hear from them.
Did you think I should go to congressman or senter for help? Did you ever use their service, is it helpful? Thanks

[Depika]

I think what you need to do is file a Freedom of Information Act. There is a form that you can use and mail to your district office. (Form G- 639) The INS will give you all the documents they have in your file and from there you'll find out what they are investigating. It could be your background investigation, your criminal records or the veracity of the documents you have submitted.

[Pham1]

You should schedule an appointment online (INFOPASS) in your district office where your application was forward to and meet with an information officer, you are likely to be referred into the building to meet with an officer that will review your case.
If you used an immigration service provider or a lawyer with a bad reputation, that might be why.

[Loue]

There were some who "claimed" that they were in the U.S., but there were patterns in a series of questionable filings. These may have come from a few attorneys and many non-attorneys. If there is a belief that fraud was committed, then applications are sent to investigations.

If they detect a pattern in a series of applications with similar names, jobs, and places, then they may question and refer these matters. However, in spite of this, many of the Vermont filings are stuck in Texas. It seems that all applicants who have facially valid claims will get their chance to prove whether they qualify under the class action for a limited time.