the hottest immigration tracker |
| Got questions on U.S. immigration? |
 |
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
Topic: July Visa Bulletin to be revised?
We are hearing from multiple sources that, on Monday or Tuesday of next week, State Department plans to issue a revised Visa Bulletin for July 2007. This revised Bulletin would retrogress some or all of the employment-based categories, very likely to the point of unavailable. Reports from AILA members about unusual levels and types of activities by USCIS indicate a particular push to adjudicate employment-based adjustments currently in the pipeline so as to exhaust visa numbers for fiscal year 2007.
This follows the actions of USCIS in June, when it began rejecting EB-3 "Other Worker" adjustment applications even though the Visa Bulletin showed an October 2001 cut-off date, on the basis that the "Other Worker" numbers for the year had been exhausted.
If this is accurate, Adjustment of Status cases (I-485 cases) filed in July will all be rejected and returned to us and no AOS (I-485 cases) could be filed in July. It would also effectively cancel all Immigrant Visa appointments at US Consulates. We will provide further updates as they become available.
Sources:
http://www.trackitt.com/discussion-forums/i140-i485/4343221/page/6/
http://www.hammondlawfirm.com/alerts/july_2007_visa_bulletin_revision.htm
|
This is a shock, this shows how unorganized these guys are...
This needs to fight in the justice court.Who will pay the doctor and attorney fees that we payed??
|
Guys: What does this mean for people who have already filed? I have no idea what retrogression means...can you please provide an example?
|
What is retrogression?
There is a quota on how many green cards can be approved from each category and country/region each fiscal year (1 OCT - 30 SEP). To make sure that to many GCs are not issued there are something called a visa number. This number is not the A# and it is not printed on the GC, it is just a queue number of sorts. For a GC to be approved a visa number must be available for the category and region of the applicant. If all numbers are not used for a catogory, they can be used for other categories (eg. EB1 can be used for EB2, EB2 for EB3 etc). If there are not enough numbers, the priority date (PD), when the LC was filed, are used to order the applicatnts. Only applicants with a PD before a certain date can have visa number assigned, and have their GC approved. Estimates of these dates for different categories and regions are published in the visa bulletin each month. A PD on or before the published date is considered current, and the applicant will be eligible to file. If there are enogh visa numbers for everyone with a PD on or before the esitimated date, the estimated PD will move forward (or at least stand still) in the comming month. But since neither the Department of State nor USCIS doesn't know how many people with approved LCs will file when their PD becomes current, some may have moved home or to other countries, been approved in other categories, died etc, there are sometimes not enough visa numbers for the applicants with current PDs that are filed. In those cases the visa numbers will go to those applicants with the oldes PDs, and the cut off date, and the estimate published, will move backwards, retrogress.
Normally everyone that has filed when their PD was current according to the visa bulletin will have their case processed, and the case will be kept pending until a visa number becomes available. While they are waiting they will be eligible for EAD and AP, and eventually to switch employers according to AC21. Only those who file when their PD is not current, will have their application rejected. What is speculated will happen now, is that the state department will not wait until the next month to adjust the estimated dates in the visa bullitin, as has been the previous practise, but revise the bulltin in the beginning of the month. Leading to all applocations not current according to the revised bulletin to be rejected, even if they were current when the application was sent to the USCIS. We don't know if this will happen though, but a lot of lawyers (and I am not a lawyer) including the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) fears it will. This is of course deaply unfair for those affected because they will incure lawyer and medical fees based in the published visa buletin, just to have their applications rejected.
What will this mean to those who have already filed?
Some people will see that their applications are approved faster which of course is a good thing, but once the visa numbers are all gone no one will be approved until new numbers become available in FY2008. Worst case for those who have already filed during June or earlier will be that their cases will be pending until after October 1, 2007, but they will not be rejected.
Note: I am not a lawyer, and I am not qualified to give legal advise. I am just sharing my general knowledge and opinions
|
hey thomasB, do you know what happens to people whole filed before Sept, 2005 when the retrogression came into effect? i.e. in my case and a few friends, we had filed for I485 as the EB3 dates for India were current before Sept, 05, but then as EB3 India retrogressed, our PD was not current.... based on July visa bulletin, we were expecting that as now our PD dates will be current, may be we will get our final approvals... but now if PDs do not become current, do we get left hanging again??
my understanding is that PD date needs to be current even for approval of the I485?? If that correct?
thanks in advance..
experio
|
Yes the PD needs to be current for approval, but that the PD is current in the visa bulletin, does not mean that the PD is current for the internal cut of date. And it is the internal cut of date that is important for approval. Unfortunately, I think the sudden change in dates in the visa bulletin was not reflecting the real availability of visa numbers, but only a way to make people file, and I don't think your situations have changed for the better or the worse. But you need to check that with your lawyers.
|
thanks thomasB,, that helps... can you explain what is the internal PD?? this is the first time I am hearing of an internal PD.. does that mean that even though the dates are not current for some EB3 categories, it is still possible that applications get approved as they have been pending since pre-sept 05.. any insight would be very helpful.
|
Does the LUD changed when they mail the FP notices and we get an email before get the FP letter?
|
What about EB1 cases? It was always current.
Will July bulletin change anything for EB1?
Any idea, what is the predictable stagre for EB1 with September bulletin?
|
What about EB1 cases? It was always current.
Will July bulletin change anything for EB1?
Any idea, what is the predictable stagre for EB1 with September bulletin?
|
***Recent Actions by USCIS/DOS
This is my First posting in this forum. I have been a passive reader since last two months. I will be happy If I trigger a few venerable members, some fresh thinking along this logic, to give us all a better insight.
Please remember I am a novice to many things under this subject. (feel free to point out holes in my writings)
I draw my conclusions from the following observations:
(Based on the Ombudsman 2007 Annual Report as of May 2007, SOP of workflow of USCIS posted elsewhere in this forum)
1. USCIS will lose 40,000 Visa numbers in FY2007 at the current rate
2. Supervisors evaluate the adjudicators based on the number of cases completed, and hence adjudicators prefer working with
"low hanging fruits"
3. USCIS has so far lost 200000+ Visa numbers since 1992
4. Whatever is the definition of backlog, USCIS is confronted with the reality that about 2 million cases need to be serviced by
them someday.
5. USCIS staff has shown commitment to reduce backlogs
6. DOL will go through their efforts to reduce the backlog and this will result in an additional about 170000 applications for
residency post OCT 07.
7. USCIS is not willing to change the process for FBI Namecheck; And FBI does not have plans in the near future to change
their process flow for USCIS. (FBI will tread along the backlog of 325000+) And this is the reason (partly) for USCIS
to adjudicate the recent submissions, as FBI process seems to augur well with the delivery of "Last In First Out"
Conclusions:
1. USCIS has taken upon themselves to do something to clear this mess.
2. It is impossible to exhaust 60000+ visas in one month, under any stretch of imagination.
2. Their goal is: from 8000 cases a month to 18000 cases a month for JUN,JUL,AUG,SEP 07.
3. Losing 40000 Visa numbers will add more problems and financial loss to USCIS (especially, the new fee rule grabs the
money from the clients, including the interim benefits in one single time)
4. They have generated some kind of temporary (but fixed) mapping of A numbers and Visa numbers and committed to DOS
to complete them (there may a small spill out and hence wastage) by SEP 2007. This is possible because USCIS is not going
to be overwhelmed by the influx of applications. (may be a pre condition by USCIS to DOS)
5. The "Low Hanging Fruits" selection logic will be modified (infact, it must have already been - eg. Lowest,lower and low)
6. The Lowest is - recent application with FBI clearance
Lower - Old application with FBI clearance
Low - Any application which can be picked up within reasonable amount of time, keeping intact their SOP of the
work flow.
We have already seen in JUN 07, that "Lower" is getting picked up.
7. So, we will see at the minimum, 4 * 18000 cases adjudicated from JUN to SEP 2007.
8. I view this action of USCIS as a simple common sense solution to an insurmountable difficult situation. (May be that is the
reason most of us are not able to explain this action)
|
I happen to think you are largely right.
The only morally questionable matter to me, is how to resolve the issue of the non-recoverable material damage caused to would-be July filers. Expenditures, travel, etc.
Even though I was only a June filer (phew!), I still think that in many ways, assigning the visa numbers to older cases than mine is actually very fair. It gives those cases instant clearance when they are through their checks (and why shouldn't they have it!). It also slows the influx of applications to a more manageable rate, to ensure that those who are just emerging from the labor backlog, will also have a chance to file soon with an old priority date, rather than being stampeded over by PERM filers and being left to rot for another 3 or 4 years, after already waiting 6.
In short, going current on all categories was like trying fill a glass of water with a firehose. A broken glass and water damange was certain to follow.
At the end of the day, name checks notwithstanding, the true culprit for these backlogs is not institutional laziness, conspiracies, or a general desire to screw the immigrant. No. The problem is that the number of people that want to come to America far outstrips the visas currently mandated as available, according the laws set forth from Congress.
Lengthy (indeed ever lengthening) waits are common knowledge to all of us, often before we commence this journey, and yet we indure it. We endure it because we want to live here. Lest we fool ourselves into thiinking we are here to do America a favor, it is important to keep perspectives. We are the guests. It's their house. We are free to leave. But no, we endure it because we like what we see here, and we want a piece of it.
For all the stomping and screaming we wish to do, until there are more visas, the queues will continue to lengthen and people will still come here, and renew their H-1Bs, and do all this, already knowing that their journey is likely to be a long one.
It is just a shame that the insane all current July Bulletin that was so obviously going to wreak havoc on the USCIS was ever released. And a greater shame still that so many people were materially damaged by its revision. For the victoms of that, who had no reason not to act on it's original contents in good faith, I hope there is at least just material compensation. Any less would be a black mark on the the goverment.
|
|
|
