USCIS As a Business Entity in EAD and Advance Parole Policy

From Mathew Oh:

• The legacy INS and the USCIS had worked on a plan for a number of years to issue a multi-year EAD. It even conceived a plan to abandon a separate Advance Parole document and turn the EAD to function as the employment authorization document as well as overseas travel document for I-485 applicants. Indeed, the USCIS even enacted and released a regulation to issue an EAD card that can extend over a period in excess of one year. However, this regulation has never been implemented because of the alleged internal disagreement within the DHS leadership. Guess what! The sources of disagreement were reportedly "money, money, money!" By issuing such new multi-year EAD, the DHS was destined to lose a huge loss in the revenue of EAD card selling business.
• Now what? Under the new filing fee schedule which took effect after July 29, 2007, issuance of EAD and Advance Parole for the post August 27, 2007 is "free, free, free" for the I-485 filers. Allegedly, the cost is incorporated in the I-485 filing fee of $1,020. The new regulation uses the term of "fee waiver" for EAD and Advance Parole for these I-485 filers. Now, you guessed it! Lo and Behold, the business calculation on EAD and Advance Parole has reversed. The DHS will lose a huge money by issuing single-year EAD and a separate Advance Prole document on a yearly basis over and over since they are free and they will have to keep producing it at no charge every year, which creates a huge workloads consuming its huge human resources and other production costs. This is particularly unacceptable to the agency under the predicted State Department Visa Bulletin for FY 2008 and in the future. Now, from the business standpoint, the DHS may make a huge money by issuing a multi-year EAD which will also function as a travel document. Ahah! No wonder why they are finally coming forward revealing their hidden agenda behind the new fee rule-making and EAD/Advance Parole reform business. Reportedly, Mr. Aytes of USCIS disclosed in a New York AILA conference that the USCIS was currently working on a single multi-year EAD card that will also replace the Advance Parole document. What a smart calculation it was in the new fee rule-making action.
• It turns out that such single card acting serving as EAD as well as travel document for multiple years will serve the mutual interests of both the immigrants and other immigration stakeholders AND the USCIS. One interesting question is whether the DHS/USCIS will go all the way acting purely on business calculation or may extend some generosity and compassion for some I-485 filers as well. The answer to this question will also involve the timing of the change and the card policy. The fee waiver for EAD and Advance Parole applies only to the post July-2007 VB fiasco I-485 filers. Accordingly, the agency will make money from the post VB fiasco 485 filers and lose money from the pre VB fiasco 485 filers if the agency issues a new multi-year EAD card accross the board coving both groups. Even though the post VB fiasco I-485 applicants may outnumber the pre VB fiasco filers, the agency must be using calculators day and night to determine the answer for the agency's maximum benefits in terms of cost saving from the new policy. One option could be that they come forward with a new regulation that such multi-year EAD card will apply only to the post VB fiasco I-485 filers. The other option could be for the agency to set timing of the new policy such that a substantial number of pre-VB fiasco I-485 applicants leave the pipeline of green card process. The bad news for the second option for the agency is the State Department's Visa Bulletin predictions for FY 2008. It thus apepars that they will determine the break-even point or overriding cost saving point considering the pouring-in new I-485 applications in the future and the number of pre VB fiasco filers in its total pool of I-485 applications. The agency is likely to determine the timing of new card policy after a careful calculation of these factors. It will be considered a shameless act, should the agency adopt the first option, which will definitely face a legal challenge in courts from the standpoint of unlawful creation of classes in violation of the nation's Constitution and unequal treatment of the classes as well as a lack of fair play and fairness in administration of justice and government process.
• Please watch carefully the upcoming move of the agency and how the business calculated new policy will unfold "how" and "when."