(Author: Joseph Whalen) What if USCIS started to deny more I-924s outright instead of always sending an RFE? Such an action is well within long existing law and the pertinent regulations were promulgated through APA[1]notice and comment rulemaking years ago so, any lawsuit would quickly fail. USCIS could institute such a measure for a short time and again as needed.
2. Bring closure to long pending cases, one way or the other;
3. Quickly denying the clearly meritless, skeletal, or naive I-924s;
4. Allow time to be spent on approving all cases that could be approved with only minor corrections, they can get RFEs orfile Motions later;
5. Protecting EB-5 investors from fraud, especially if ALL Decisions are posted to the website immediately—like BALCA and BIA do;
6. Allow developers to “move on” and either break ground or seek funding “other
than” EB-5
7. Put applicants “on notice” of the deficiencies in their initial filings so that they could prepare better filings IF they chose to do so;
8. Clear the path for new filings for which greatly reduced processing time would ensue;
9. Suspend across-the-board implementation of this streamlining measure for new applicants who have been “put on notice” and only need a small amount of revision to become approvable; and
10. Retain limited implementation of this measure to ensure that meritless cases are dispensed with quickly so as to avoid a new backlog;
The negative consequences would be confined to those who:
1. Continue to submit meritless applications, or
2. Waste their time, money, and effort filing frivolous lawsuits against USCIS; and
3. USCIS & DOJ wasted expense of answering meritless lawsuits.
[1] Administrative Procedures Act codified as 5 USC, Part I, Chapter 5.
The anticipated effects would include mostly positivesas follows:
1. Quick Backlog Reduction of older forms I-924 across-the-board2. Bring closure to long pending cases, one way or the other;
3. Quickly denying the clearly meritless, skeletal, or naive I-924s;
4. Allow time to be spent on approving all cases that could be approved with only minor corrections, they can get RFEs orfile Motions later;
5. Protecting EB-5 investors from fraud, especially if ALL Decisions are posted to the website immediately—like BALCA and BIA do;
6. Allow developers to “move on” and either break ground or seek funding “other
than” EB-5
7. Put applicants “on notice” of the deficiencies in their initial filings so that they could prepare better filings IF they chose to do so;
8. Clear the path for new filings for which greatly reduced processing time would ensue;
9. Suspend across-the-board implementation of this streamlining measure for new applicants who have been “put on notice” and only need a small amount of revision to become approvable; and
10. Retain limited implementation of this measure to ensure that meritless cases are dispensed with quickly so as to avoid a new backlog;
The negative consequences would be confined to those who:
1. Continue to submit meritless applications, or
2. Waste their time, money, and effort filing frivolous lawsuits against USCIS; and
3. USCIS & DOJ wasted expense of answering meritless lawsuits.
[1] Administrative Procedures Act codified as 5 USC, Part I, Chapter 5.
No comments:
Post a Comment