ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers

Home Page

Advanced search

Immigration Daily


RSS feed

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network


Chinese Immig. Daily


Connect to us

Make us Homepage



Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily

The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free

Immigration LLC.

Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here:

< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily < Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly

A Sunny Day At A Dreary Place

by Brandon Meyer

May 6, 2009 brought a mid-Spring spate of warm, sunny weather, without a cloud in the sky, creating an almost perfect Southern California day. I decided to spend this sunny day attending the "External Stakeholders Meeting" at the California Service Center ("CSC") of USCIS. Admittedly, I approached this meeting with an equal measure of fear and loathing. Not having attended one of these meetings in several years and having read some disappointingly evasive and unresponsive liaison notes in recent times, I questioned the value of the entire exercise. My preliminary skepticism was not abated when receiving an e-mail asking me if I still wanted to attend. CSC had sent out a notice that they would no longer engage in a Q&A with attendees because of brewing bad blood between the "external stakeholders" and the CSC amid accusations of bad faith dealings. The CSC declared:

"While we have always encouraged that questions be submitted in advance, we have traditionally reserved a portion of the meeting for providing responses to questions from the floor, always with what we believed was a mutual understanding that those responses were unofficial and informal, did not represent or establish Agency policy, and were intended only to be of assistance to our customers in their day to day dealings with our Center. Unfortunately, recent events have changed that perspective of mutual understanding as informal verbal responses have been misquoted and are being used adversely in pending litigation. Therefore, regretfully we will no longer be accepting questions from the floor during our external stakeholder meetings."

In case the message was not clear, the e-mail continued with the following proviso, which was also attached to the bottom of each page of the Q&A distributed at the meeting. The CSC attempted to mandate:

"By attending this meeting you agree that the discussions at this meeting are merely the opinions of the individuals present at the meeting. Opinions offered in this meeting do not constitute USIS policy and cannot be cited as such in litigation, threatened litigation, congressional, or other inquires, unless they are provided to the public on the USCIS website, or via policy memorandum. Thank you for your cooperation."

Thus, I arrived at the CSC anticipating a silent exchange of written answers to previously submitted and carefully vetted questions with no interaction between the external stakeholders and the CSC. While it was sunny outside, I expected a dreary meeting to match the general dreariness that characterizes the physicality of the CSC's offices.

The meeting began with a follow-up dressing down along the lines of the previous e-mail. The open Q&A format of the past was no longer relevant. Then it was announced that the frequency of these "external stakeholders meetings" was to change to either an annual or semi-annual basis, with details forthcoming. However, an almost immediate relaxation of the open Q&A ban was announced by the CSC's willingness to allow the submission of questions (to be limited to follow-up questions regarding the written answers provided) on index cards that would be vetted and distributed to the appropriate CSC panelist for answering. Nonetheless, the answers that were to be given would be limited to answers that one could otherwise find in existing public sources.

Thus, I was surprised that once the written questions were submitted and answered that something quite similar to an open Q&A broke out. Although nothing substantive was resolved by the breakout of this spontaneous Q&A, both sides were able to vent some of the lingering frustrations that have arisen in recent months.

Substantive Updates at the CSC

As has been the case with most of the recent written answers provided by the CSC in response to written stakeholder questions, CSC's written answers to substantive questions were appalling vague and unresponsive to the point of being insulting to the assembled stakeholders.

Two answers that stood out as particularly unresponsive (questions 15 and 18 on the handout) concerned the hot-button issues of the CSC's treatment of L-1B petitions and H-1B and L-1 petitions involving third-party worksites. Question 15 was a sensible, multi-part question asking the CSC to clarify what employers should submit with an initial L-1B petition and whether USCIS would be issuing new guidance on L-1B specialized knowledge, among other pertinent questions. The CSC's response was the appallingly unresponsive "For requirements, please see the applicable laws, regulations and any pertinent policy guidance available at By providing such an arrogantly unresponsive answer, the CSC is basically saying to external stakeholders that they have no stake in the process, regardless of the new "open government" initiatives of the Obama Administration.

Question 18 straightforwardly asked the CSC to "explain what evidence the CSC looks for in L and H petitions involving third party sites." The CSC's response? "Please see response to #15."

This evasiveness did not go unchallenged by the attendees. When pressed by one participant to provide responsive, good faith answers to questions 15 and 18, the CSC's response was "we answered that question and that's our answer." It's easier to squeeze blood from a turnip than it is to figure out how that answer addresses the questions presented.

Forty-two questions were asked in total. No new ground or substantive information was provided in any response. The knowledge base of the external stakeholders was not broadened in any way. More importantly, judging by the anger among the attendees, defensiveness of the CSC officials, and the heated exchanges that took place among some attendees and CSC officials after the meeting concluded, the bad blood and misunderstanding can be expected to continue for some time. Even more worringly, post-meeting discussions with the CSC's Community Relations Officer revealed that the CSC fails to appreciate how much of a bad public relations problem they currently have within the external stakeholder community.

EB-5 Update

A brief EB-5 update was provided, which functioned better as an exercise in self-congratulation. The CSC was proud of the fact that their processing times of both I-526's and I-829's are within guidelines issued by USCIS headquarters. The CSC is also current on adjudicating new Regional Center proposals, but admitted to having issued a high proportion of Request for Evidence ("RFE's") in these cases. The CSC is also receiving EB-5 petitions initially filed at the Texas Service Center.

Change of Counsel

The CSC stated that change of counsel notification could either be executed online or through the National Customer Service Center ("NCSC"). A blanket change of counsel option is not available; Change of counsel procedures must be followed for each underlying matter.


With the outbreak of an impromptu Q&A and the heated exchanges that ensued, some of my earlier pessimism that the meeting would be akin to a mutual wall of silence were misplaced. Nevertheless, I left feeling that relations between the external stakeholders and the CSC will be rocky for some time to come. With the conclusion of the meeting, my time in the dreary CSC had come to an end. At least it was still sunny and warm outside.

About The Author

Brandon Meyer is a Law Clerk with Scudi, Johnson & Ayers LLP in San Diego, California.

The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.

Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here: