Macaca
01-30 07:11 PM
Unpaid bench means you are "Out of Status". Not illegal.
I have never heard USCIS penalizing unpaid bench. If it a problem and such a common case, why don't we ever hear about penalty against unpaid bench?
Is it possible to take unpaid leave every year?
In teaching you have an option of not teaching in summer. This means you do not get 2-3 pay checks; happens every year because most faculty don't teach in summer. Faculty is not even aware that absence of pay checks can be a problem.
I have never heard USCIS penalizing unpaid bench. If it a problem and such a common case, why don't we ever hear about penalty against unpaid bench?
Is it possible to take unpaid leave every year?
In teaching you have an option of not teaching in summer. This means you do not get 2-3 pay checks; happens every year because most faculty don't teach in summer. Faculty is not even aware that absence of pay checks can be a problem.
wallpaper wallpaper tattoo de estrellas.
NKR
07-29 12:06 AM
Time for a chill beer, anybody wants to join? If yes, wherever you are, cheers :cool:
Cheers dude, working on an assignment...
hick. gueesa i hadf twoo machs beor.. hick ...goodsnightsss
Cheers dude, working on an assignment...
hick. gueesa i hadf twoo machs beor.. hick ...goodsnightsss
waitnwatch
07-28 01:06 PM
You are one funny guy in this thread with high sense of humor!! I like that!!!
Only thing I don't like about you is - EB2. (Need to say I am EB3?)
LOL.
and he/she forgot to mention the part about taking a hot shower as a convenient replacement for a dip in a holy river!!!!!!!!!:D
Only thing I don't like about you is - EB2. (Need to say I am EB3?)
LOL.
and he/she forgot to mention the part about taking a hot shower as a convenient replacement for a dip in a holy river!!!!!!!!!:D
2011 tattoo de estrellas.
chmur
09-10 06:53 PM
It is a given that Demand is not stagnant . If it were , backlog would have been reduced by 140K this year alone.
Each year the new quota is 140K , as long as the new demand each year ~100K - the remaining 40K goes towards backlog elimination . We will know in the next inventory report what is "net" reduction for 2010. One can do rough math of latest inventory report and the current priority dates to arrive at ~approximate figure of 35-40K.
I think EB3 should get cleared in next 5 years - I think flood of new EB2 applications are overblown.
I think "peak demand" was between 2003 and 2007 . Good news is USCIS is no more wasting numbers .
Given that change to laws is almost impossible. We should sit tight and wait for 3-5 years.
Each year the new quota is 140K , as long as the new demand each year ~100K - the remaining 40K goes towards backlog elimination . We will know in the next inventory report what is "net" reduction for 2010. One can do rough math of latest inventory report and the current priority dates to arrive at ~approximate figure of 35-40K.
I think EB3 should get cleared in next 5 years - I think flood of new EB2 applications are overblown.
I think "peak demand" was between 2003 and 2007 . Good news is USCIS is no more wasting numbers .
Given that change to laws is almost impossible. We should sit tight and wait for 3-5 years.
more...
alterego
07-12 07:34 PM
I posted this in another thread.
There could be two reasons for this huge forward movement for EB2.
1) They want to minimize wastage by making more visas available for CP.
2) There was some heartburn among EB2 China applicants when their PD was set to April 2004. Since there are a lot more EB2 India applicants with PD's earlier than that, they felt that most of the EB2-ROW spillover would go to India. Moving the dates forward to 2006 would ensure that EB2 China gets a decent share of the spillover.
Point taken, However when EB2 India is moved to June 1 2006, there will be even more EB2 India with PD earlier than it was previously. So whichever date you set as the cut off, EB2 India will have more people with PDs earlier than that. So I guess I am not understanding how that helps Chinese applicants. Unless the USCIS decides which of the petitions they will process with current priority dates and gives preference to Chinese cases. Per my understanding, they are supposed to use RD in such a situation. However who knows what they will do.
There could be two reasons for this huge forward movement for EB2.
1) They want to minimize wastage by making more visas available for CP.
2) There was some heartburn among EB2 China applicants when their PD was set to April 2004. Since there are a lot more EB2 India applicants with PD's earlier than that, they felt that most of the EB2-ROW spillover would go to India. Moving the dates forward to 2006 would ensure that EB2 China gets a decent share of the spillover.
Point taken, However when EB2 India is moved to June 1 2006, there will be even more EB2 India with PD earlier than it was previously. So whichever date you set as the cut off, EB2 India will have more people with PDs earlier than that. So I guess I am not understanding how that helps Chinese applicants. Unless the USCIS decides which of the petitions they will process with current priority dates and gives preference to Chinese cases. Per my understanding, they are supposed to use RD in such a situation. However who knows what they will do.
varshadas
02-07 09:35 PM
No one has volunteered so far for the third spot.
more...
rajuseattle
07-15 07:14 PM
Thakurji,
Until yesterday you were suggesting your employer asked you to do something which you didnt agree and that forced you to quit him.
today you are changing your version suggesting you are feeling sorry you quit him earlier...what had made this sudden transformation. Anyways thats personal thing between you and your ex-employer.
Anyways we are all happy for the Happy end of this story...that your ex-employer is willing to accept you as employee once he gets you GC and he is going to answer RFE.
I dont think you need any competant attorney now, your ex-employer's attorney should be able to answer the RFE.
cheer up...!!!
Until yesterday you were suggesting your employer asked you to do something which you didnt agree and that forced you to quit him.
today you are changing your version suggesting you are feeling sorry you quit him earlier...what had made this sudden transformation. Anyways thats personal thing between you and your ex-employer.
Anyways we are all happy for the Happy end of this story...that your ex-employer is willing to accept you as employee once he gets you GC and he is going to answer RFE.
I dont think you need any competant attorney now, your ex-employer's attorney should be able to answer the RFE.
cheer up...!!!
2010 tattoo estrellas. tattoos de
walking_dude
10-29 10:22 PM
I'm surprised only 70 members are interested in accurate prediction of future VB movements, and orderly processing of 485 applications instead of the current random lottery!
It would help lot of us make informed decisions if we were to know how many are in the queue and how long we have to wait.We can spend much of the wasted Tracking, VB prediction time with our families. Don't you think it's important? And that your time is too precious to be wasted over such pursuits?
It would help lot of us make informed decisions if we were to know how many are in the queue and how long we have to wait.We can spend much of the wasted Tracking, VB prediction time with our families. Don't you think it's important? And that your time is too precious to be wasted over such pursuits?
more...
logiclife
12-20 04:54 PM
Please lookup 245(k).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001255----000-.html
(k) Inapplicability of certain provisions for certain employment-based immigrants
An alien who is eligible to receive an immigrant visa under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) of this title (or, in the case of an alien who is an immigrant described in section 1101 (a)(27)(C) of this title, under section 1153 (b)(4) of this title) may adjust status pursuant to subsection (a) of this section and notwithstanding subsection (c)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8) of this section, if—
(1) the alien, on the date of filing an application for adjustment of status, is present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission;
(2) the alien, subsequent to such lawful admission has not, for an aggregate period exceeding 180 days—
(A) failed to maintain, continuously, a lawful status;
(B) engaged in unauthorized employment; or
(C) otherwise violated the terms and conditions of the alien’s admission.
So basically if you are applying for employment based immigration adjustment of status(meaning I-485) under EB1 EB2 or EB3, (that's what they mean by paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) in the above text), and if you have not voilated status for over 180 days after your last legal entry into USA, and if you were in legal status at the time of applying for 485, then you may adjust status.
Now, a really good idea would be that you disclose this whole thing at the time of filing 485 and also claim the benefit under section 245(k). Since its apparent that you have not done it, I would advise to leave it alone and dont dig up old graves.
Consult an attorney for further advise, but dont go overboard in being Raja Harishchandra (the chronic truth teller) because frankly USCIS may not care about this and you can always claim the benefit under section 245(k).
However, if USCIS finds out about this (which is very very unlikely) and if the officer is a very strict person, then they may create a case of wilful misrepresentation. That's because on form I-485, it says that "have you ever been out of status or illegal and if so, provide details". In that question, if you didnt disclose your past history of being out of status ( I am assuming you were out of status and not illegal) then basically, in theory, they can say that you wilfully misrepresented (basically lied to them) by hiding this.
One option is to file an amendment to your I-485 and disclose this fact. That way, atleast they cannot make a case of wilfull misrepresentation. Nonetheless, remember, for them to find this out (about you not working and sitting at home) is difficult. Unless they somehow ask for your W-2 and paystubs for past 6-7 years and in that case it will be very easy for them to see that you were not working for 1 year.
Consult an attorney and tell the attorney all the details. I am not a lawyer and you should always ask a lawyer for legal advise.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001255----000-.html
(k) Inapplicability of certain provisions for certain employment-based immigrants
An alien who is eligible to receive an immigrant visa under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) of this title (or, in the case of an alien who is an immigrant described in section 1101 (a)(27)(C) of this title, under section 1153 (b)(4) of this title) may adjust status pursuant to subsection (a) of this section and notwithstanding subsection (c)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8) of this section, if—
(1) the alien, on the date of filing an application for adjustment of status, is present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission;
(2) the alien, subsequent to such lawful admission has not, for an aggregate period exceeding 180 days—
(A) failed to maintain, continuously, a lawful status;
(B) engaged in unauthorized employment; or
(C) otherwise violated the terms and conditions of the alien’s admission.
So basically if you are applying for employment based immigration adjustment of status(meaning I-485) under EB1 EB2 or EB3, (that's what they mean by paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) in the above text), and if you have not voilated status for over 180 days after your last legal entry into USA, and if you were in legal status at the time of applying for 485, then you may adjust status.
Now, a really good idea would be that you disclose this whole thing at the time of filing 485 and also claim the benefit under section 245(k). Since its apparent that you have not done it, I would advise to leave it alone and dont dig up old graves.
Consult an attorney for further advise, but dont go overboard in being Raja Harishchandra (the chronic truth teller) because frankly USCIS may not care about this and you can always claim the benefit under section 245(k).
However, if USCIS finds out about this (which is very very unlikely) and if the officer is a very strict person, then they may create a case of wilful misrepresentation. That's because on form I-485, it says that "have you ever been out of status or illegal and if so, provide details". In that question, if you didnt disclose your past history of being out of status ( I am assuming you were out of status and not illegal) then basically, in theory, they can say that you wilfully misrepresented (basically lied to them) by hiding this.
One option is to file an amendment to your I-485 and disclose this fact. That way, atleast they cannot make a case of wilfull misrepresentation. Nonetheless, remember, for them to find this out (about you not working and sitting at home) is difficult. Unless they somehow ask for your W-2 and paystubs for past 6-7 years and in that case it will be very easy for them to see that you were not working for 1 year.
Consult an attorney and tell the attorney all the details. I am not a lawyer and you should always ask a lawyer for legal advise.
hair tattoo de estrellas
srkamath
07-18 07:07 PM
My guess
Best case : 12 months
Worst care : 4 years
sachug22,
I agree with your initial post on this thread. In all likelihood, we will end up with ~ 50k - 55k, EB3s issued this fiscal.
Last year they issued ~ 6200 EB2-IN, and dates progressed one-year.
Considering the EB1 spillover plus the FB spillover, we will have ~ 15k - 20k available for EB2 In/CH for use in Aug/Sep08. If the USCIS does its job well, then that should be enough to propel EB2-IN dates forward by two-years April-04.
I believe a sizeable number of applicants with PD before Jun-06 will get their GCs approved before Sep-30-2008.
I know my case is stuck in background checks, hopefully it is past 180 days - i have no way of knowing.
I will be excessively anxious (like most others here) till Aug 1st week, if there is a deluge of approvals - good i'll probably get more anxious.
If there is only a trickle, i'll forget the whole Aug VB and go back to my plan-A (i.e. forget the GC and get on with living).
EB2-IN, PD Oct-28-2007
Best case : 12 months
Worst care : 4 years
sachug22,
I agree with your initial post on this thread. In all likelihood, we will end up with ~ 50k - 55k, EB3s issued this fiscal.
Last year they issued ~ 6200 EB2-IN, and dates progressed one-year.
Considering the EB1 spillover plus the FB spillover, we will have ~ 15k - 20k available for EB2 In/CH for use in Aug/Sep08. If the USCIS does its job well, then that should be enough to propel EB2-IN dates forward by two-years April-04.
I believe a sizeable number of applicants with PD before Jun-06 will get their GCs approved before Sep-30-2008.
I know my case is stuck in background checks, hopefully it is past 180 days - i have no way of knowing.
I will be excessively anxious (like most others here) till Aug 1st week, if there is a deluge of approvals - good i'll probably get more anxious.
If there is only a trickle, i'll forget the whole Aug VB and go back to my plan-A (i.e. forget the GC and get on with living).
EB2-IN, PD Oct-28-2007
more...
imneedy
05-06 04:57 PM
I dont think we should relay on their 15 months time line. Its too late. I am sure in coming 15 months whole immigration system will be changed. May be we will see point based system or something different. And at that time information will be no use. They are smart that is why they gave us 15 months. They will wait for 12 months to Congress to do something and then if nothing happen they will write SQL query in last 3 months.
gc_on_demand, did you or anyone else here got similar letter?
gc_on_demand, did you or anyone else here got similar letter?
hot tattoos de estrellas. tattoo
srkamath
07-13 07:33 PM
Hi srkamath
My actual RD is 2nd July, my notices show it as 30th of July. Do you think we should try you get that corrected? Is that posssible at all?
Thanks
Lucky you, you might start seeing LUDs on you case by the end of this month. If you do please send me a message.
Reg correcting the dates, USCIS usually takes months to respond to such things. I'm not gonna do anything about it for my case, unless the processing dates show virtually no movement.
My understanding of process.date is that it is the oldest date of completed cases - which means they might be caught up with processing on most cases received till that date (July-20th 2007 ?) I could be wrong, we'll see..
My actual RD is 2nd July, my notices show it as 30th of July. Do you think we should try you get that corrected? Is that posssible at all?
Thanks
Lucky you, you might start seeing LUDs on you case by the end of this month. If you do please send me a message.
Reg correcting the dates, USCIS usually takes months to respond to such things. I'm not gonna do anything about it for my case, unless the processing dates show virtually no movement.
My understanding of process.date is that it is the oldest date of completed cases - which means they might be caught up with processing on most cases received till that date (July-20th 2007 ?) I could be wrong, we'll see..
more...
house galeria de tattoo. tattoo de
tawlibann
03-18 11:00 PM
:D
I agree. Let's forget about this misunderstanding. As to the current topic, here is also Greg Siskind's opinion (his blog) which I just found:
On the Visa Bulletin, DOS' Charles Oppenheim has the difficult job of trying to move the priority dates exactly enough to get the maximum number of visas issued in the fiscal year. In years past, hundreds of thousands of visas were wasted because of forecasting problems. It's one of the reasons behind last summer's mess. There is no grand conspiracy on Mr. Oppenheim's part to try and disadvantage any group or deliberately shortchange the immigrant community. So I'm going to assume that the moving around of the numbers was done with the goal of squeezing out every last visa of the 140,000 available.
There probably really isn't any conspiracy or wrongdoing on DOS's part with regard to the last bulletin, and I do hope they do their best to use visas efficiently so that everyone becomes Current sooner rather than later. Maybe they should just do a better job at explaining information and educating people, so that one group doesn't think they're becoming disadvantaged and start doing foolish things.
I agree. Let's forget about this misunderstanding. As to the current topic, here is also Greg Siskind's opinion (his blog) which I just found:
On the Visa Bulletin, DOS' Charles Oppenheim has the difficult job of trying to move the priority dates exactly enough to get the maximum number of visas issued in the fiscal year. In years past, hundreds of thousands of visas were wasted because of forecasting problems. It's one of the reasons behind last summer's mess. There is no grand conspiracy on Mr. Oppenheim's part to try and disadvantage any group or deliberately shortchange the immigrant community. So I'm going to assume that the moving around of the numbers was done with the goal of squeezing out every last visa of the 140,000 available.
There probably really isn't any conspiracy or wrongdoing on DOS's part with regard to the last bulletin, and I do hope they do their best to use visas efficiently so that everyone becomes Current sooner rather than later. Maybe they should just do a better job at explaining information and educating people, so that one group doesn't think they're becoming disadvantaged and start doing foolish things.
tattoo tattoo de estrellas. tattoos
vin13
11-11 05:36 PM
Is there any IV member in DC willing take up this task, while we work on document?
Lets not limit this task for someone who is close to DC. The person close to DC can always represent to visit. But we need support in getting an appointment. Getting an appointment is something that is not limited to only individuals close to DC. Use the help of your congressman to get an appointment or their help to address this issue.
the congressmen have aides who meet their constituents. Department officials need not give appointments to public. So we need some influence to get the appointment. I am meeting my congressman's aide on Nov 20th. But all of us need to do the same. hopefully one or more of us succeed.
We can fine tune the letter in matter of minutes. WE NEED TO WORK ON GETTING THE APPOINTMENT.
Lets not limit this task for someone who is close to DC. The person close to DC can always represent to visit. But we need support in getting an appointment. Getting an appointment is something that is not limited to only individuals close to DC. Use the help of your congressman to get an appointment or their help to address this issue.
the congressmen have aides who meet their constituents. Department officials need not give appointments to public. So we need some influence to get the appointment. I am meeting my congressman's aide on Nov 20th. But all of us need to do the same. hopefully one or more of us succeed.
We can fine tune the letter in matter of minutes. WE NEED TO WORK ON GETTING THE APPOINTMENT.
more...
pictures tattoo de estrellas.
mallu
06-20 02:54 PM
PD Nov.2002 India EB2( original labor ).
I-485 RD Jul 2006 . AD : June 2008.
Waiting for actual card...:D
I-485 RD Jul 2006 . AD : June 2008.
Waiting for actual card...:D
dresses tattoo de estrellas.
GC_dd
06-11 11:56 AM
done
more...
makeup tattoos de estrellas. Abhinaym
10dulkar
03-16 01:07 PM
dont "warn" me..........you think i give a damn about your "warning"??
the right to speak is MINE. all YOU can do from your high horse is ban me from the forum.
i really dont care, i still think interfilers and substituters should get what they derserve. every single bit of it. may they really, truly, go to hell, and stay there indefinitely.
and NO, dont preach to me about trying to "fix" the system. the agenda here is mostly EB3, and mostly Indian, at best. the multitudes of diploma holders get pissed when i call them out for what they are...........why are THEY so sensitive and ashamed???
i have a RIGHT to be in the proper EB queue, which i EARNED, and did not employ cheap desi-employer tricks and other games to get into........if that does not answer your doubts my friend, then as i said earlier, ban me..........i dont really care either way.
i dont advertise what i have done or can do for IV. somehow, that is a little demeaning. sort of like going to a temple and offering some money and then coming out and proclaiming to one and all how generous a give you are....
or his posts.... they are just inflaming you to reply.... please don't......
the right to speak is MINE. all YOU can do from your high horse is ban me from the forum.
i really dont care, i still think interfilers and substituters should get what they derserve. every single bit of it. may they really, truly, go to hell, and stay there indefinitely.
and NO, dont preach to me about trying to "fix" the system. the agenda here is mostly EB3, and mostly Indian, at best. the multitudes of diploma holders get pissed when i call them out for what they are...........why are THEY so sensitive and ashamed???
i have a RIGHT to be in the proper EB queue, which i EARNED, and did not employ cheap desi-employer tricks and other games to get into........if that does not answer your doubts my friend, then as i said earlier, ban me..........i dont really care either way.
i dont advertise what i have done or can do for IV. somehow, that is a little demeaning. sort of like going to a temple and offering some money and then coming out and proclaiming to one and all how generous a give you are....
or his posts.... they are just inflaming you to reply.... please don't......
girlfriend pictures tattoo de estrellas.
jonty_11
07-09 06:36 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
text in bold has a GREY area....'plus remaining balance from previous months.'
They can always say the additional approvals were left over from previous months...
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
text in bold has a GREY area....'plus remaining balance from previous months.'
They can always say the additional approvals were left over from previous months...
hairstyles hay tatuajes de estrellas
Kodi
04-01 11:36 AM
Does anyone have the format of the employment letter? My attorney didn't request one even when I emailed him few time.
Form I-140 has an area to write the wages per week? The amount my attorney wrote is wages for the year. Is this ok?
Thank you.
Form I-140 has an area to write the wages per week? The amount my attorney wrote is wages for the year. Is this ok?
Thank you.
sanjay02
03-17 09:08 PM
Hi
I have the following questions about I-131.
On I-131
Part 4. Information about your proposed travel.?
Can I answer to visit parents?
I have the following questions about I-131.
On I-131
Part 4. Information about your proposed travel.?
Can I answer to visit parents?
alterego
07-04 08:31 PM
Everyone blaming CIS/DOS needs to understand some basics behind this mess. Before going to conclude anything, first, one should read all the ombudsman reports for last 3 or 4 years. Former INS or current USCIS’s functions and operations were not questionable and not known to public till ombudsman office was established. Ombudsman has helped customers and keep helping to improve efficiency of CIS. Ombudsman main concern (or goal) have been over the 4 years are
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The “documentarily qualified 485 applications” mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made “current” for all EB categories. This is how they determine “current” or “over-subscribed” and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered “Current.”
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be “oversubscribed” and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
Excellent analysis and reccomendations. I feel that a visa number should be assigned at the point of 485 filing. If there is a problem it can be returned to the pool. That will be the least disruptive way to allot numbers in a timely fashion. In the end, that is likely to be the change that will come out of this.
This way, it will offer prospective applicants a more clear viewpoint of what they are up against when they consider their immigration options. i.e if you know you will have to wait 10 yrs to file an AOS even if you have an approved immigrant petition ala the family based immigrants, your plans would be different. You might not feel the wait worthwhile or even if you do, you do it fully aware of the consequences, 10 yrs exploitative employer on h1b etc.
If you notice, the level of hubris and cry is less in family based immigration even though the waits are longer. Atleast they know before they apply!
Your last point about a visa recapture is on the money. It is the least disruptive and easiest of the possible changes for current EB applicants in the current hostile atmosphere. It comes across as a rectification of USCIS inefficiency rather than a request for more immigration, which the public has clearly rejected at this time. If we can get 100-150K visas recaptured, this will greatly help EVERYONE in the EB queue for various reasons. It will buy us the 1-2 yrs needed before immigration is seriously addressed again. It will help those waiting to file 485 to file, those in 485 to have a hope to get out etc. It will help heavily retrogressed countries to keep getting more visas than the annual caps etc. I think that is something everyone can agree on as well.
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The “documentarily qualified 485 applications” mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made “current” for all EB categories. This is how they determine “current” or “over-subscribed” and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered “Current.”
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be “oversubscribed” and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
Excellent analysis and reccomendations. I feel that a visa number should be assigned at the point of 485 filing. If there is a problem it can be returned to the pool. That will be the least disruptive way to allot numbers in a timely fashion. In the end, that is likely to be the change that will come out of this.
This way, it will offer prospective applicants a more clear viewpoint of what they are up against when they consider their immigration options. i.e if you know you will have to wait 10 yrs to file an AOS even if you have an approved immigrant petition ala the family based immigrants, your plans would be different. You might not feel the wait worthwhile or even if you do, you do it fully aware of the consequences, 10 yrs exploitative employer on h1b etc.
If you notice, the level of hubris and cry is less in family based immigration even though the waits are longer. Atleast they know before they apply!
Your last point about a visa recapture is on the money. It is the least disruptive and easiest of the possible changes for current EB applicants in the current hostile atmosphere. It comes across as a rectification of USCIS inefficiency rather than a request for more immigration, which the public has clearly rejected at this time. If we can get 100-150K visas recaptured, this will greatly help EVERYONE in the EB queue for various reasons. It will buy us the 1-2 yrs needed before immigration is seriously addressed again. It will help those waiting to file 485 to file, those in 485 to have a hope to get out etc. It will help heavily retrogressed countries to keep getting more visas than the annual caps etc. I think that is something everyone can agree on as well.
0 comments:
Post a Comment