eb3_nepa
04-27 06:12 PM
Not sure if this has been posted before. If not here goes. This is on immigration-law.com.
Does IV know anything about this?
04/25/2009: On-Going USCIS Efforts to Reduce Backlog in Employment-Based Immigration Applications<br><br>
Lately, I-140 and EB-485 applicants have been receiving envelopes from the Service Centers with their long-awaited approval notices, particularly those cases which were filed during and after the FY 2007 July Visa Bulletin fiasco period. Along with the development, information has been released by the stake-holder agencies of the Department of State and the USCIS indicating that there has been efforts on the part of the USCIS to eliminate employment-based immigation backlogs. In releasing the May 2009 Visa Bulletin, the State Department confirmed that the USCIS had been taking out EB visa numbers en masse exhausting all the EB-3 visa numbers available for the rest of FY 2009. This report is consistent with the information released by the USCIS on its projected processing time to four months for the employment-based I-140 petitions and EB-485 applications by the end of FY 2009, which is September 30, 2009. The goal appears to have contributed to the exhaustion of annually allocated employment-based visa numbers so that no EB visa numbers be unused or wasted by the end of FY 2009. The commitment to this goal of the USCIS is reaffirmed by yesterday's release of Mr. Michael Ayte's report on the employment-based visa processing times in the Leadership Journal of the DHS. Considering a huge backlog and processing delays in the employment-based immigration petitions and 485 applications for almost two years as affected primarily by the FY 2007 July Visa Bulletin fiasco, the recent event that evolved in the USCIS processing time change is certainly a welcome news for waiters who have suffered from the past backlogs.
<br><br>
What have tirbuted to this change? The long-term strategy for reduction of processing times for immigration benefits applications appears to be launch of "Transformation Program" that intended to achieve reduction of processing times by turning current paper-based application and processing system into complete electronization system and process focusing on the concept of digital "account" databases within approximately a period of five years. However, this program has experienced a snag. However, lately the DHS disclosed its multi-billion dollar contract with the IBM for two programs. One is to convert all the existing files and date into digitazition and the other is to develop and implement electronic application and processing system. Reportedly, for this purpose, the IBM reenforced its operation in India and the work is underway. However, report indicates that the first phase appears to focus on the digitazation of existing database rather than implementation of electronic application and processing system. Overall, the goal of the contract appears to be completed in the next five years. It thus appears that the current efforts of elimination of backlogs within this fiscal year do not rely on the progress of this program. The big momentum was created by the Congress appropriating fund for USCIS human resources. Thanks to the Congress action to give fund for hiring additional 2,000 resources, the USCIS recxruited and trained new hires who joined the USCIS field offices including Service Centers and local district and field offices, initially focusing on the job of elimination of huge naturalization applications. USCIS had been reporting that the hurdle for reduction of employment-based immigration cases was the mountain of naturalization applications that poured in around the time of FY 2007 July Visa Bulletin fiasco. Now, the naturalization application backlog is under control, inreased resources are becoming available for the employment-based immigration files. Another important factor that has contributed to the agency's recent move was the implementation name-check reduction agreement between the FBI and the DHS and the USCIS policy to complete adjudicaion of EB-485 applications when the FBI name check failed to complete within 180 days. The third factor that cannot be discounted nor minimized is the new DHS leadership's move and commitment for the elimination of the employment-based immigration case backlogs. As people may recall, the Secretary Napolitano of the DHS issued a directive to report the state of backlogs in the immigration benefit applications and the USCIS leaders plan for reduction or elimination of such backlogs. With all of the above developments combined, the employment-based immgrant community is continuously expected to witness the reduction of processing times, at least for a short term. However, long-term reduction or elimination of EB case processing backlog is likely to depend on success of the IBM contract digitization program of the USCIS. This needs continuing internal and external political support, and we hope that the Congress extends its strong support, particularly considering importance of the successful reengineering program to accomodate the potentially forthcoming avalanche and flood gate opening for case loads for the USCIS when the country passes the Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation.
Does IV know anything about this?
04/25/2009: On-Going USCIS Efforts to Reduce Backlog in Employment-Based Immigration Applications<br><br>
Lately, I-140 and EB-485 applicants have been receiving envelopes from the Service Centers with their long-awaited approval notices, particularly those cases which were filed during and after the FY 2007 July Visa Bulletin fiasco period. Along with the development, information has been released by the stake-holder agencies of the Department of State and the USCIS indicating that there has been efforts on the part of the USCIS to eliminate employment-based immigation backlogs. In releasing the May 2009 Visa Bulletin, the State Department confirmed that the USCIS had been taking out EB visa numbers en masse exhausting all the EB-3 visa numbers available for the rest of FY 2009. This report is consistent with the information released by the USCIS on its projected processing time to four months for the employment-based I-140 petitions and EB-485 applications by the end of FY 2009, which is September 30, 2009. The goal appears to have contributed to the exhaustion of annually allocated employment-based visa numbers so that no EB visa numbers be unused or wasted by the end of FY 2009. The commitment to this goal of the USCIS is reaffirmed by yesterday's release of Mr. Michael Ayte's report on the employment-based visa processing times in the Leadership Journal of the DHS. Considering a huge backlog and processing delays in the employment-based immigration petitions and 485 applications for almost two years as affected primarily by the FY 2007 July Visa Bulletin fiasco, the recent event that evolved in the USCIS processing time change is certainly a welcome news for waiters who have suffered from the past backlogs.
<br><br>
What have tirbuted to this change? The long-term strategy for reduction of processing times for immigration benefits applications appears to be launch of "Transformation Program" that intended to achieve reduction of processing times by turning current paper-based application and processing system into complete electronization system and process focusing on the concept of digital "account" databases within approximately a period of five years. However, this program has experienced a snag. However, lately the DHS disclosed its multi-billion dollar contract with the IBM for two programs. One is to convert all the existing files and date into digitazition and the other is to develop and implement electronic application and processing system. Reportedly, for this purpose, the IBM reenforced its operation in India and the work is underway. However, report indicates that the first phase appears to focus on the digitazation of existing database rather than implementation of electronic application and processing system. Overall, the goal of the contract appears to be completed in the next five years. It thus appears that the current efforts of elimination of backlogs within this fiscal year do not rely on the progress of this program. The big momentum was created by the Congress appropriating fund for USCIS human resources. Thanks to the Congress action to give fund for hiring additional 2,000 resources, the USCIS recxruited and trained new hires who joined the USCIS field offices including Service Centers and local district and field offices, initially focusing on the job of elimination of huge naturalization applications. USCIS had been reporting that the hurdle for reduction of employment-based immigration cases was the mountain of naturalization applications that poured in around the time of FY 2007 July Visa Bulletin fiasco. Now, the naturalization application backlog is under control, inreased resources are becoming available for the employment-based immigration files. Another important factor that has contributed to the agency's recent move was the implementation name-check reduction agreement between the FBI and the DHS and the USCIS policy to complete adjudicaion of EB-485 applications when the FBI name check failed to complete within 180 days. The third factor that cannot be discounted nor minimized is the new DHS leadership's move and commitment for the elimination of the employment-based immigration case backlogs. As people may recall, the Secretary Napolitano of the DHS issued a directive to report the state of backlogs in the immigration benefit applications and the USCIS leaders plan for reduction or elimination of such backlogs. With all of the above developments combined, the employment-based immgrant community is continuously expected to witness the reduction of processing times, at least for a short term. However, long-term reduction or elimination of EB case processing backlog is likely to depend on success of the IBM contract digitization program of the USCIS. This needs continuing internal and external political support, and we hope that the Congress extends its strong support, particularly considering importance of the successful reengineering program to accomodate the potentially forthcoming avalanche and flood gate opening for case loads for the USCIS when the country passes the Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation.
wallpaper Messi vs Ronaldo
webm
10-15 12:38 PM
I agree with you!!
GC approval is always unknown even when Priority Date current and they club with diff criterias...:( fully a crazy system..
Just a positive hope and moving further as a daily routine..:)
--------------------
PD EB3-I:Oct,2001
GC approval is always unknown even when Priority Date current and they club with diff criterias...:( fully a crazy system..
Just a positive hope and moving further as a daily routine..:)
--------------------
PD EB3-I:Oct,2001
Appu
09-20 09:54 PM
I haven't filed my I-140 yet but I also got a 3 year extension on my H1B. My lawyer, who used to work for the USCIS, says it is not necessary to notify them. She says they often get confused. With one of her previous clients, they actually said "that's OK".
2011 Messi vs Cristiano: quem é o
vparam
05-14 08:04 PM
My PD will become current. I want to support IV, so contributing agaain.
today 100, 450 till date.
today 100, 450 till date.
more...
pointlesswait
06-17 11:30 AM
i know that there was post on the forum what to say..when you call..cant find it now..
can anyone post the link here..plz!
Don't think that your call doesn't matter.. They do take the number of person called for the same issue and this is the response i got from CHC Dennis Cardoza's office...
Dennis Cardoza : Well aware of the bills, i was number 15 for friday the 13th and when i asked for total number, she said we have received 100 or so calls for these bills....
And two or three lawmakers office said that we are reviewing the bills at the moment.. so definitely a positive sign...
So grab your phone and reach out to house reps... Just try to call 2 members and i bet that you will finish the rest of the calls and you'll reply to my message so you can share your experience and encourage others.
can anyone post the link here..plz!
Don't think that your call doesn't matter.. They do take the number of person called for the same issue and this is the response i got from CHC Dennis Cardoza's office...
Dennis Cardoza : Well aware of the bills, i was number 15 for friday the 13th and when i asked for total number, she said we have received 100 or so calls for these bills....
And two or three lawmakers office said that we are reviewing the bills at the moment.. so definitely a positive sign...
So grab your phone and reach out to house reps... Just try to call 2 members and i bet that you will finish the rest of the calls and you'll reply to my message so you can share your experience and encourage others.
alterego
04-11 04:59 PM
I would definitely be cautious about the plan you have mentioned. Here is the reason. You applied as an attending/practicing hospitalist through labor for a future job offer and you are moving into a trainee position. Should you be called for an interview or get a RFE at the AOS stage(not that uncommon nowadays), you would have to demonstrate how it is that doing an oncology fellowship better qualifies you to be a future hospitalist. That would be difficult. You could take a chance and get away but know that you will be taking one.
Even in cases of Physician NIW when you have completed the stipulated 5 yr commitment, lawyers are unwilling to give the all clear to do a fellowship on the EAD. They seem to be in consensus that you can move into another attending internist job but that is as far as they will go.
Even in cases of Physician NIW when you have completed the stipulated 5 yr commitment, lawyers are unwilling to give the all clear to do a fellowship on the EAD. They seem to be in consensus that you can move into another attending internist job but that is as far as they will go.
more...
karl65
11-17 12:37 AM
yes thats true .... but I guess only pig is not enough ... we need the whole animal kingdon fly before ....:D
Well...at least most of the Animal kingdom can fly.....the problem is if USCIS knows it!!!!!!!!:D:D:D:D
Well...at least most of the Animal kingdom can fly.....the problem is if USCIS knows it!!!!!!!!:D:D:D:D
2010 ronaldo vs messi stats. in the
frostrated
06-25 01:17 PM
Here are the questions that I have:
1) As per recent news, a lot of applications are PRE-ADJUDICATED. Now does this mean that those applications will be adjudicated when their PD becomes current , meaning to be approved based on a current PD , does the application has to go through the process of adjudication. Or does it mean adjudication is defined as "processing complete but is independent of PD being current or not" . What does the adjudication means in the above particular context.
2) IN this particular question, the answer does not specifically mean PD being current or not. It only mentions that "need to have job offer when AOS is being adjudicated". If you interpret it this way , then yes PD being current or not does not matter. And you will need to show u have job offer. BUT if definition of adjudication also involves approving the I-485 then one can argue that yes unless ur PD is current u cannot be approved and hence u do not need to have job offer if your PD is current.
I would like to know what various attorneys think about this
1. My view on pre-adjudication is that they processing is done on the application and is put in an approvable status. once the PD is current and the immigrant visa number is available, then such an application can be approved. but it has to be noted that these applications can be reviewed again before approving and can be denied at that time.
2. when an AOS application is being adjudicated, if the underlying terms of the 485 application are not satisfied, then it can be denied. it does not matter if the PD is current. the 485 is based on the 140, which in turn is based on a bonafide job. using ac21, you can change employers, but i still feel that you need to be employed in a similar position and not looking for a similar position.
any thoughts anyone?
1) As per recent news, a lot of applications are PRE-ADJUDICATED. Now does this mean that those applications will be adjudicated when their PD becomes current , meaning to be approved based on a current PD , does the application has to go through the process of adjudication. Or does it mean adjudication is defined as "processing complete but is independent of PD being current or not" . What does the adjudication means in the above particular context.
2) IN this particular question, the answer does not specifically mean PD being current or not. It only mentions that "need to have job offer when AOS is being adjudicated". If you interpret it this way , then yes PD being current or not does not matter. And you will need to show u have job offer. BUT if definition of adjudication also involves approving the I-485 then one can argue that yes unless ur PD is current u cannot be approved and hence u do not need to have job offer if your PD is current.
I would like to know what various attorneys think about this
1. My view on pre-adjudication is that they processing is done on the application and is put in an approvable status. once the PD is current and the immigrant visa number is available, then such an application can be approved. but it has to be noted that these applications can be reviewed again before approving and can be denied at that time.
2. when an AOS application is being adjudicated, if the underlying terms of the 485 application are not satisfied, then it can be denied. it does not matter if the PD is current. the 485 is based on the 140, which in turn is based on a bonafide job. using ac21, you can change employers, but i still feel that you need to be employed in a similar position and not looking for a similar position.
any thoughts anyone?
more...
DSLStart
12-15 12:51 PM
jayleno: there is nothing funny about this situation so no need to make jokes on him. He just told him about sending wife to India, because that guys uername says Atul which hail from India and not srilanka or pak or bangladesh.
Buddy,
Are you trying to create a problem or solve one? If I were from Sri Lanka, why would I send my wife to India? If we start following your advice, soon many husbands would be leading a single life for being laid off.
Buddy,
Are you trying to create a problem or solve one? If I were from Sri Lanka, why would I send my wife to India? If we start following your advice, soon many husbands would be leading a single life for being laid off.
hair Ronaldo vs Messi - Who#39;s
Munna Bhai
08-05 01:56 PM
Hi Friend,
i have sheduled for interview in July,some how i couldn't make it that time.I have requested to postpond for 3 months.Are they assinged any visa for me ? Are they going to call me for interview after 3 month.Can anyone tell me are they going to call me ? Please answer . Thanks
please be more specific ,which interview??
i have sheduled for interview in July,some how i couldn't make it that time.I have requested to postpond for 3 months.Are they assinged any visa for me ? Are they going to call me for interview after 3 month.Can anyone tell me are they going to call me ? Please answer . Thanks
please be more specific ,which interview??
more...
Friend
02-18 10:21 PM
Unfortunately, we won't be able to do anything in your wife's matter. The people you are referring to as the ones whose cases got accepted are the ones with bounced checks. There is a difference between the manner in which USCIS treats cases with bounced checks and cases where checks are missing, are in an incorrect amount, there is a mismatch between words and figures in the check, check is not dated, check is not signed, etc.
In the first category, there is prima fascie evidecne that the check is in the proper amount, check is dated, signed, made payable to the proper authority. In those cases, the USCIS considers bounced checks as a matter for collection. The reason that there is a difference is that in the first case, the properly signed check IS NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT AND COMPLETELY VALID UNDER LAW.
In your case, the check was deficient because it put the party (the USCIS/Government) on notice of a defect. A party to whom a defective negotiable instrument is given with notice of the defect does not become a HOLDER IN DUE COURSE (VERY IMPORTANT UNDER THE LAW ). IN OTHER WORDS, THE CHECK LOSES ITS POWER OF NEGOTIABILITY UNDER LAW. Even if the Check is deficient that it does not affect its negotiability ( for example, check is not dated, or the check only contains the amount in words), the party to whom it is presented is under no liability to accept the check. For these reasons, THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR WIFE'S MATTER AND THE EXAMPLES YOU PROVIDE.
For this reason, I advised you to wait until the PD for your category become current again.
In the first category, there is prima fascie evidecne that the check is in the proper amount, check is dated, signed, made payable to the proper authority. In those cases, the USCIS considers bounced checks as a matter for collection. The reason that there is a difference is that in the first case, the properly signed check IS NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT AND COMPLETELY VALID UNDER LAW.
In your case, the check was deficient because it put the party (the USCIS/Government) on notice of a defect. A party to whom a defective negotiable instrument is given with notice of the defect does not become a HOLDER IN DUE COURSE (VERY IMPORTANT UNDER THE LAW ). IN OTHER WORDS, THE CHECK LOSES ITS POWER OF NEGOTIABILITY UNDER LAW. Even if the Check is deficient that it does not affect its negotiability ( for example, check is not dated, or the check only contains the amount in words), the party to whom it is presented is under no liability to accept the check. For these reasons, THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR WIFE'S MATTER AND THE EXAMPLES YOU PROVIDE.
For this reason, I advised you to wait until the PD for your category become current again.
hot Cristiano Ronaldo Vs Lionel
vegi_hyd@yahoo.com
06-07 09:55 AM
I would (and did) send to the address on the confirmation page. If you search for other forums on EAD filing recently, that is what is also recommended there
Thanks JackisBack.
Thanks JackisBack.
more...
house Cristiano Ronaldo Dos Santos
sameer2730
05-15 09:50 AM
who think if they close their eyes, their problems will go away....:D
For the record I do not have a problem. Employer is a very large company and I have worked in the same location for close to 10 years with a well maintained LCA history. So chill. My eyes are wide open in matters important to me.
The reason for being pissed is that these bull issues are manufactured for a commercial reason (by ) and with the express purpose to distract from the main and important goals for advocacy to solve this frustrating retrogession problem.
You on the other hand is a desperate fool on someone's illegitimate (from a moral perspective) payroll. Seriously man have some shame. BTW Are you and EASTINDIA the same person? You sound like you are.
For the record I do not have a problem. Employer is a very large company and I have worked in the same location for close to 10 years with a well maintained LCA history. So chill. My eyes are wide open in matters important to me.
The reason for being pissed is that these bull issues are manufactured for a commercial reason (by ) and with the express purpose to distract from the main and important goals for advocacy to solve this frustrating retrogession problem.
You on the other hand is a desperate fool on someone's illegitimate (from a moral perspective) payroll. Seriously man have some shame. BTW Are you and EASTINDIA the same person? You sound like you are.
tattoo Cristiano Ronaldo Vs Messi Vs
seeking_GC
07-12 02:25 AM
Any idea on when the lawsuit actually gets to court?
more...
pictures c ronaldo vs messi,
huh
12-08 03:35 PM
Is the 15 months counted from the filing date or the audit reply date?
Mine was filed on Oct. 07' and still stuck in audit. It disgusts me just by thinking about this...
Thanks!
Mine was filed on Oct. 07' and still stuck in audit. It disgusts me just by thinking about this...
Thanks!
dresses Lionel Messi Vs Ronaldo
dingudi
06-07 11:45 AM
Is this RFE on your pending 485? What service center is this at? TSC or NSC.
Also what you can do is request IRS transcripts for year 1999-2000 if you cannot find the returns.
Also what you can do is request IRS transcripts for year 1999-2000 if you cannot find the returns.
more...
makeup ronaldo vs messi stats 2011.
GC_SUCK
11-02 11:03 AM
As per my knowledge, GC thru employment is for future job position, i.e. Once your GC is approved you should do the job in that area.
Plz. correct if I am wrong.
My company has filed one of my Labor (stuck in DBEC) from MN, while I am working in Texas from Last five years.
Plz. correct if I am wrong.
My company has filed one of my Labor (stuck in DBEC) from MN, while I am working in Texas from Last five years.
girlfriend Cristiano Ronaldo V.S Messi
natrajs
08-21 12:07 PM
Best Wishes and Good Luck
hairstyles C.Ronaldo Vs Messi Vs
HV000
02-17 09:56 PM
Its important to lobby Republicans as well since they tried to help us during the CIR debate. I can't recall Democratic senators helping LEGAL immigrants during the CIR debate last year!
prom2
10-02 09:07 PM
So ND definitely matters. Check your position in queue using ND. Not RD.
So in my opinion with current situation PD matters in the end. Luck matters first. :(
I am agree with you.
So in my opinion with current situation PD matters in the end. Luck matters first. :(
I am agree with you.
ragz4u
03-15 11:39 AM
hi Super_Moderator,
Why cant we try to add now..instead of waiting for later time..to add this ammendment thru some senator or somebody for filing 485 during retrogression...
just to know whey we need to wait for later to add this...
Unfotunately thats not the way the US political system works! Just as we are trying to get pro-immigrant stuff in, there are others who are trying to negate our force and in fact get any pro immigrant stuff out! Example, numbersusa.
As I have said in my previous post, we are trying to push for the pro-immigrant package at every step. It could happen now, it could happen later, in the worst case it might not happen at all! There are a lot of forces involved in this.
What is in our control is to keep trying and not give up till the very end. And make no mistake, we are doing that every second coz we are in the same boat as you are.
Why cant we try to add now..instead of waiting for later time..to add this ammendment thru some senator or somebody for filing 485 during retrogression...
just to know whey we need to wait for later to add this...
Unfotunately thats not the way the US political system works! Just as we are trying to get pro-immigrant stuff in, there are others who are trying to negate our force and in fact get any pro immigrant stuff out! Example, numbersusa.
As I have said in my previous post, we are trying to push for the pro-immigrant package at every step. It could happen now, it could happen later, in the worst case it might not happen at all! There are a lot of forces involved in this.
What is in our control is to keep trying and not give up till the very end. And make no mistake, we are doing that every second coz we are in the same boat as you are.
No comments:
Post a Comment