USCIS Proposes Removal of 90 day processing time for EADs

[bariki 71]

USCIS is proposing to scrap the 90 day regulated processing time for EADs. Here's the quote from the Federal Register:

"..in light of national security and fraud concerns, DHS is proposing to remove regulations that provide a 90- day processing timeline for EAD applications and that require the issuance of interim EADs if processing extends beyond the 90-day mark."

If I'm reading that correctly, this could have a big impact on AOS applicants who file their I-765 concurrently and who do not already have work authorization. Beyond the obvious inability to work legally, no work auth means, in some states, no ability to get a state-issued drivers license.

Edited February 18, 2016 by bariki

[Georgia16 2,858]

So what people are suppose to wait like what 7 months (estimate for getting green card) from they file to drive and work? Am I understanding that right?

Edited February 18, 2016 by Georgia16

[LionessDeon 2,060]

I'm failing to see how preventing someone from working increases security. What am I missing?

[Darnell 8,478]

i think it's a good thing, but also smacks for the need for more automation.

There was a wave of automation with the FBI on the namechecks for the I-130, this century - why not do something similar?

[bariki 71]

I also wonder if this might impact on travel, as Advance Parole comes on the 'combo card' these days. Can imagine USCIS holding up a concurrent I-131 application until the I-765 is approved to reduce costs.

[LionessDeon 2,060]

Oh great. So how soon could something like this start?

[bariki 71]

Oh great. So how soon could something like this start?

It's still in public consultation at the moment (for another 11 days). I'm not sure how long after that it might take to be approved and implemented.

[Amhara 460]

i think it's a good thing, but also smacks for the need for more automation.

There was a wave of automation with the FBI on the namechecks for the I-130, this century - why not do something similar?

That 'security' caveat is stuck way at the bottom, isn't it? I was reading it and thinking, "Okay, better processes for those here on work visas?" Then..."NO EAD FOR YOU!" I agree that it would be great if we could prevent crazies from coming here and wanting to change our whole culture and Constitution via murder and violence, but how exactly? I am wondering how the San Bernadino attacks would affect our AOS application. One of two things will happen: 1) They want to apply additional screening techniques, such as personal interviews or 2) They may sit on the case longer waiting for updated instructions. Probably the latter, which hey, cool. But only if the process doesn't increase the cost to taxpayers.

That's where I come to this day gone automation possibility. I have a bad taste in my mouth from a recent experience, which is why I quoted this comment. My husband and I submitted his name change documents shortly after his AOS. One of those steps is that we had to send in his fingerprints to the Texas Department of Public Safety for a state and FBI criminal check. Cool, no big deal.....unless the state just runs the report in the wrong name!

On his card, we had to list other names used. Rather than using his legal name or running the checks in ALL the names listed on the card, they used my last name as his first name because they forgot the card asks for us to list the last name first. Just goes to show that nothing beats a well experienced, trained human. As an auditor, I was able to pick up all sorts of stuff just by an interview. But at the end of the day, it's all chaos anyway, isn't it?

[bariki 71]

Plus side is that EAD applicants can continue to request priority processing at the 75 day mark. It's just won't be guaranteed to do anything.

"Consistent with current protocols, applicants whose initial or renewal EAD applications have been pending for 75 days or more may continue calling the National Customer Service Center (NCSC) to request priority processing. In practice, as noted above, these policies result in the adjudication of the vast majority of Applications for Employment Authorization within 90 days of filing. DHS anticipates that it will be unable to adjudicate applications within 90 days in only a small percentage of cases, including those involving delays in security processes."

[Amhara 460]

Okay, I think I got it. I think this does not apply because this Federal Register (I love your researching skills, bariki!!!) is mentioning a specific CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). I see that it's mentioning 8 CFR 274a-13(d) (http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=6b9c05ad2b585260f1d5f228e01a5f90&mc=true&node=se8.1.274a_113&rgn=div8)

I believe (which I will want to double check) is based on the asylum cases. Many times, an applicant will enter the US on a valid NIV, such as student, tourist, business and then file for asylum because they fear persecution in their homeland, often fearing death. They can apply for an EAD after being here I think 120 days, and if the USCIS does not object to the petition within that timeframe, they automatically get the EAD. The funny thing is, there has been a whole heck of a lot of people doing this, but then returning back to their country of origin for extended periods of time. (One example is the Boston Bombers family.) So you are saying you will suffer by going back, but staying there for two months is okay? I understand being homesick and all, but this sort of casts a shadow on the asylum cases, which I haven't seen how USCIS handles the case when that happens.

[bariki 71]

Okay, I think I got it. I think this does not apply because this Federal Register (I love your researching skills, bariki!!!) is mentioning a specific CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). I see that it's mentioning 8 CFR 274a-13(d) (http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=6b9c05ad2b585260f1d5f228e01a5f90&mc=true&node=se8.1.274a_113&rgn=div8)

I believe (which I will want to double check) is based on the asylum cases. Many times, an applicant will enter the US on a valid NIV, such as student, tourist, business and then file for asylum because they fear persecution in their homeland, often fearing death. They can apply for an EAD after being here I think 120 days, and if the USCIS does not object to the petition within that timeframe, they automatically get the EAD. The funny thing is, there has been a whole heck of a lot of people doing this, but then returning back to their country of origin for extended periods of time. (One example is the Boston Bombers family.) So you are saying you will suffer by going back, but staying there for two months is okay? I understand being homesick and all, but this sort of casts a shadow on the asylum cases, which I haven't seen how USCIS handles the case when that happens.

I don't agree. I believe this applies to all EAD applicants as 8 CFR 274a-13(d) is the paragraph that relates to interim EADs and the 90 day regulated processing timeframe in its entirety. No special mention of asylum seekers is made with regard to eliminating said timeframe.

[Amhara 460]

I don't agree. I believe this applies to all EAD applicants as 8 CFR 274a-13(d) is the paragraph that relates to interim EADs and the 90 day regulated processing timeframe in its entirety. No special mention of asylum seekers is made with regard to eliminating said timeframe.

It is mentioned because 8 CFR 274a.13(a) has a list that this CFR applies to. It says, "Aliens authorized to be employed under sections 274a.12(a)(3), (4), (6) through (8), (a)(10) through (15), and (a)(20) must file an application in order to obtain documentation evidencing this fact." and these are the ones that this CFR would cover and if the Federal Register mentions this one in particular, these are the groups it is focused towards.

Now, you may notice that 8 CFR 274a.12(9) is for K-1 visas; however, this applies to the fiance's that enter, submit the EAD request BEFORE the AOS. I say this because the I-765 instructions has the list of the different ways someone can apply for the EAD. On page 5, (a)(6) covers K-1's. None of us used that because we used option ©(9). EAD's issued under 8 CFR 274a.12(9) are not renewable, which makes the petition useless for those applicants, if there ever were any.

Further, if you read 8 CFR 274a.12(d) you will see that these particular ones get an automatic approval if they don't get their EAD within 90 days. "Failure to complete the adjudication within 90 days will result in the grant of an employment authorization document for a period not to exceed 240 days."

[bariki 71]

It is mentioned because 8 CFR 274a.13(a) has a list that this CFR applies to. It says, "Aliens authorized to be employed under sections 274a.12(a)(3), (4), (6) through (8), (a)(10) through (15), and (a)(20) must file an application in order to obtain documentation evidencing this fact." and these are the ones that this CFR would cover and if the Federal Register mentions this one in particular, these are the groups it is focused towards.

Now, you may notice that 8 CFR 274a.12(9) is for K-1 visas; however, this applies to the fiance's that enter, submit the EAD request BEFORE the AOS. I say this because the I-765 instructions has the list of the different ways someone can apply for the EAD. On page 5, (a)(6) covers K-1's. None of us used that because we used option ©(9). EAD's issued under 8 CFR 274a.12(9) are not renewable, which makes the petition useless for those applicants, if there ever were any.

Further, if you read 8 CFR 274a.12(d) you will see that these particular ones get an automatic approval if they don't get their EAD within 90 days. "Failure to complete the adjudication within 90 days will result in the grant of an employment authorization document for a period not to exceed 240 days."

(You can tell that we both have time on our hands eh, Amhara? )

Okay, I see what you're getting at - because (c)(9) applicants are not being specifically called out in 8 CFR 274a.13(a), you don't believe they will be affected by the proposed elimination of the 90 day regulatory processing timeframe?

The language of the proposed change doesn't read that way though. Indeed, it takes pains to explain why the 90 day regulatory limit is unworkable today whilst making soothing noises about striving to adjudicate cases within 90 days (but without recourse to a 240 day EAD if they cannot).

Edited February 18, 2016 by bariki

[MS and KK 13]

IF someone already pointed this out my apologies but this change only applies to

Retention of EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 Immigrant Workers and Program Improvements Affecting High-Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers

[bariki 71]

IF someone already pointed this out my apologies but this change only applies to

Retention of EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 Immigrant Workers and Program Improvements Affecting High-Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers

That's just the title of the Register entry. The regulatory changes apply to much more widely than the title implies.