From: Daniel Huang
To: namechecktracker@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 2:15 AM
Subject: [namechecktracker] Update on CIS WOM, Reality Check
Hi all, my recent post regarding the CIS proposal to formally codifytheir policy of not expediting WOMs and 1447b cases has caused a lotof confusion. Thus I feel that it is necessary to give everyone anupdate on the status of WOMs and 1447bs.
National Status: From what I can gather from speaking with other
colleagues throughout the country, most litigation cases are
concentrated in CA, TX, and the Northeast.
As of 01/18/07, WOM cases at TSC (Dallas Dist.) are settled at between 40-70 days, which is about the same pace WOM cases at CSC filed back around Sept. to Oct. 06. Presently, cases filed at CSC (Central Dist.CA) at taking around 90-100 days to settle. US Attys at the CentralDistrict of CA tells me that more than 100 new cases are coming in each month in their district, to the point that they no longer remember the names of Plaintiffs.
WOMs and 1447bs filed in Northern California are still settled at a faster pace (40-70 days). Southern Distrct of California (San Diego area) is about the same or worst than the Central Dist.
Proposed Policy-Reality Check
The policy to not expedite WOM cases is thus far an internal CIS
policy. The policy has not been communicated to me by any US
Attorney. Nor have we recieved any opposition papers citing the policy as a legal authority to challenge any WOMs or 1447(b) petitions filed. Cases are still being approved on a regular basis as evidenced by many of the recent posts here and other forums.
As to how soon the CIS proposal will be published as implementing
regulations [so as to provide US Attys teeth to file motions to
dismiss WOMs and 1447(b)s], that depends on how much more pressure the case delays will put on US Attorneys and district courts. In my opinion, the flood of immigration lawsuits in the past 3-4 months means CIS will act soon b/c in many jurisdictions the US Attorneys are no longer able to function normally.