kk_kk
05-19 11:50 AM
You just have to justify by saying, you have been in US on H1B visa and you came back after you have completed your project. Aftre that it is upto consulate.
Winner
05-21 12:31 PM
Good post
Pappu, Can this post be moved to "Ask lawyers" area of forum to get other lawyers opinion as well?
I've seen many companies trying their best to convince their employees to use their EAD instead of paying 10 times more for the H1B extension. This is very valid from company's stand point.
But it will be helpful for fellow immigrants to know exactly what they are getting into when they decide to when they abandon their H1B visa.
Pappu, Can this post be moved to "Ask lawyers" area of forum to get other lawyers opinion as well?
I've seen many companies trying their best to convince their employees to use their EAD instead of paying 10 times more for the H1B extension. This is very valid from company's stand point.
But it will be helpful for fellow immigrants to know exactly what they are getting into when they decide to when they abandon their H1B visa.
gc_chahiye
07-20 06:18 PM
My PD is Nov 2004, I got 140 approved. Im not filing 485 now as im unmarried.
Any ideas when can be the date current again(for my PD atleast)?
EB2 or EB3? If EB2 then based on data someone posted here earlier, there is a good chance of you becoming current in the next 12-18 months.
Any ideas when can be the date current again(for my PD atleast)?
EB2 or EB3? If EB2 then based on data someone posted here earlier, there is a good chance of you becoming current in the next 12-18 months.
gcseeker2002
02-20 04:21 PM
gcseeker2002,
Can you please provide the link.
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/CasePerm.aspx
You need to download the MDB files. In the pre-perm era files , the country of the alien was not listed which is new in the perm files.
Can you please provide the link.
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/CasePerm.aspx
You need to download the MDB files. In the pre-perm era files , the country of the alien was not listed which is new in the perm files.
more...
sledge_hammer
02-07 04:07 PM
Take the poll people ...
Thanks!
Thanks!
abhaykul
05-04 02:05 PM
Guys,
1) For 7 th yr extension your LC and I 140 have to be approved if your LC
is less than 365 days old at the end of 6 th year.
2) If your LC is more than 365 days at the end of 6 yrs it does not matter if it is approved or not you are still eligible for 7 th year extension.
Abhay
1) For 7 th yr extension your LC and I 140 have to be approved if your LC
is less than 365 days old at the end of 6 th year.
2) If your LC is more than 365 days at the end of 6 yrs it does not matter if it is approved or not you are still eligible for 7 th year extension.
Abhay
more...
thesparky007
06-06 02:44 PM
mine are not on there?
you are kidding
you are kidding
nixstor
08-23 11:01 AM
pani_6,
While I am with you on the outburst, I want to underscore that GC is not a panacea for all problems in life. C mon, There is more to life than GC. Yes, your Masters Degree will pay you in the long run. No need to worry about it. Keep the GC thing on the back burner and see what you can do meanwhile (PMP,GMAT etc..)
While I am with you on the outburst, I want to underscore that GC is not a panacea for all problems in life. C mon, There is more to life than GC. Yes, your Masters Degree will pay you in the long run. No need to worry about it. Keep the GC thing on the back burner and see what you can do meanwhile (PMP,GMAT etc..)
more...
rock945
08-08 11:20 AM
I think you can earn upto maximum 4 credits per year. so to get 40 credits you have to work for 10 years.
rsharma
07-24 06:58 PM
rsharma:
For many of the applications filed during the 2007 "visa-gate" visas are not available to allow USCIS to approve the applications. However, USCIS is in the process of doing what they can to get these applications ready to be approved once a visa becomes available.
So the idea is that for many of these applications USCIS has already decided that they are approvable but for the fact that a visa is not available, and once a visa becomes available, they will approve them. Hence the idea that they are "pre-adjudicated".
Thank you attorney Sauer and all other IV members for replying to my question.
I am little confused at the reply I received from USCIS. They are saying that my application cannot be adjudicated till visa numbers are available.
Do they mean they will not pre adjudicate my case till visa number is available ?
or
Do they mean that pre adjudication is done, but the visa number assignment process (adjudication) will be done once visa number is avalable?
The processing dates are passed my received date and notice date in the processing center where my application is processed.
Please let me know your thoughts.
For many of the applications filed during the 2007 "visa-gate" visas are not available to allow USCIS to approve the applications. However, USCIS is in the process of doing what they can to get these applications ready to be approved once a visa becomes available.
So the idea is that for many of these applications USCIS has already decided that they are approvable but for the fact that a visa is not available, and once a visa becomes available, they will approve them. Hence the idea that they are "pre-adjudicated".
Thank you attorney Sauer and all other IV members for replying to my question.
I am little confused at the reply I received from USCIS. They are saying that my application cannot be adjudicated till visa numbers are available.
Do they mean they will not pre adjudicate my case till visa number is available ?
or
Do they mean that pre adjudication is done, but the visa number assignment process (adjudication) will be done once visa number is avalable?
The processing dates are passed my received date and notice date in the processing center where my application is processed.
Please let me know your thoughts.
more...
mrajatish
01-24 12:21 PM
Friends,
As part of the Washington State Chapter, I want to arrange a conference call for all Washington, Oregon and Idaho state members. I will send out details soon on the conf call.
The main agenda will be
1. How to increase awareness about IV and increase its member base/funding?
2. How to target the big employers in this region (e.g., Intel, Microsoft)?
3. How to meet all Congressmen and their Immigration staff?
Thanks,
Raj
mrajatish@yahoo.com
As part of the Washington State Chapter, I want to arrange a conference call for all Washington, Oregon and Idaho state members. I will send out details soon on the conf call.
The main agenda will be
1. How to increase awareness about IV and increase its member base/funding?
2. How to target the big employers in this region (e.g., Intel, Microsoft)?
3. How to meet all Congressmen and their Immigration staff?
Thanks,
Raj
mrajatish@yahoo.com
dontcareaboutGC
03-19 11:24 AM
Ignore this if this is a repost!
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives
on Immigration Statistics
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim
Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division
Visa Services Office
U.S. Department of State
June 6, 2007
2:00 p.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and distinguished members of
the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to answer
your questions and provide an overview of our immigrant visa control
and reporting program operated by the U.S. Department of State. The
Department of State is responsible for administering the provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) related to the numerical
limitations on immigrant visa issuances. At the beginning of each
month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report from each consular post
listing totals of documentarily-qualified immigrant visa applicants in
categories subject to numerical limitation. Cases are grouped in three
different categories: 1) foreign state chargeability, 2) preference,
and 3) priority date.
Foreign state chargeability for visa purposes refers to the fact that
an immigrant is chargeable to the numerical limitation for the foreign
state or dependent area in which the immigrant's place of birth is
located. Exceptions are provided for a child (unmarried and under 21
years of age) or spouse accompanying or following to join a principal
to prevent the separation of family members, as well as for an
applicant born in the United States or in a foreign state of which
neither parent was a native or resident. Alternate chargeability is
desirable when the visa cut-off date for the foreign state of a parent
or spouse is more advantageous than that of the applicant's foreign
state.
As established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, preference is
the visa category that can be assigned based on relationships to U.S.
citizens or legal permanent residents. Family-based immigration falls
under two basic categories: unlimited and limited. Preferences
established by law for the limited category are:
Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their minor children, if any.
Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, and unmarried
sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents.
Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their spouses and minor children.
Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
and their spouses and minor children provided the U.S. citizen is at
least 21 years of age.
The Priority Date is normally the date on which the petition to accord
the applicant immigrant status was filed, generally with U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). VO subdivides the annual
preference and foreign state limitations specified by the INA into
monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily-qualified applicants
which have been reported to VO are compared each month with the
numbers available for the next regular allotment. The determination of
how many numbers are available requires consideration of several
variables, including: past number use; estimates of future number use
and return rates; and estimates of USCIS demand based on cut-off date
movements. Once this consideration is completed, the cutoff dates are
established and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order
of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy
all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is
considered "Current." For example: If the monthly allocation target is
10,000, and we only have 5,000 applicants, the category can be
"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.
The cut-off date is the priority date of the first
documentarily-qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a
visa number. For example, if the monthly target is 10,000 and we have
25,000 applicants, then we would need to establish a cut-off date so
that only 10,000 numbers would be allocated. In this case, the cut-off
would be the priority date of the 10,001st applicant.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are
entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st,
8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers
under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a
month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the 14th under the
8th, etc.) VO attempts to establish the cut-off dates for the
following month on or about the 8th of each month. The dates are
immediately transmitted to consular posts abroad and USCIS, and also
published in the Visa Bulletin and online at the website
www.travel.state.gov. Visa allotments for use during that month are
transmitted to consular posts. USCIS requests visa allotments for
adjustment of status cases only when all other case processing has
been completed. I am submitting the latest Visa Bulletin for the
record or you can click on: Visa Bulletin for June 2007.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM AND CLARIFICATION OF SOME
FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS:
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified
at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every
applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date
been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments
are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported
�documentarily qualified� (or, theoretically ready for interview) each
month. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to
another, with the inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
If an applicant is reported documentarily qualified but allocation of
a visa number is not possible because of a visa availability cut-off
date, the demand is recorded at VO and an allocation is made as soon
as the applicable cut-off date advances beyond the applicant's
priority date. There is no need for such applicant to be reported a
second time.
Visa numbers are always allotted for all documentarily-qualified
applicants with a priority date before the relevant cut-off date, as
long as the case had been reported to VO in time to be included in the
monthly calculation of visa availability. Failure of visa number
receipt by the overseas processing office could mean that the request
was not dispatched in time to reach VO for the monthly allocation
cycle, or that information on the request was incomplete or inaccurate
(e.g., incorrect priority date).
Allocations to Foreign Service posts outside the regular monthly cycle
are possible in emergency or exceptional cases, but only at the
request of the office processing the case. Note that, should
retrogression of a cut-off date be announced, VO can honor
extraordinary requests for additional numbers only if the applicant's
priority date is earlier than the retrogressed cut-off date. Not all
numbers allocated are actually used for visa issuance; some are
returned to VO and are reincorporated into the pool of numbers
available for later allocation during the fiscal year. The rate of
return of unused numbers may fluctuate from month to month, just as
demand may fluctuate. Lower returns mean fewer numbers available for
subsequent reallocation. Fluctuations can cause cut-off date movement
to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly
possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches
the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7 percent is a
cap, which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed.
Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The
country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the
annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This
limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled,
however. A portion of the numbers provided to the Family Second
preference category is exempt from this per-country cap. The American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) removed the
per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant
demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of
such numbers available.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by
documentarily-qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds
the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation,
that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may
require the establishment of a cut-off date which is earlier than that
which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The
prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same
percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual
limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off
dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off
dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
The committee submitted several questions that fell outside of VO�s
area of work, therefore, I have provided in my written testimony today
the answers only to those questions that the Department of State can
answer. Thank you for this opportunity.
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives
on Immigration Statistics
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim
Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division
Visa Services Office
U.S. Department of State
June 6, 2007
2:00 p.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and distinguished members of
the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to answer
your questions and provide an overview of our immigrant visa control
and reporting program operated by the U.S. Department of State. The
Department of State is responsible for administering the provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) related to the numerical
limitations on immigrant visa issuances. At the beginning of each
month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report from each consular post
listing totals of documentarily-qualified immigrant visa applicants in
categories subject to numerical limitation. Cases are grouped in three
different categories: 1) foreign state chargeability, 2) preference,
and 3) priority date.
Foreign state chargeability for visa purposes refers to the fact that
an immigrant is chargeable to the numerical limitation for the foreign
state or dependent area in which the immigrant's place of birth is
located. Exceptions are provided for a child (unmarried and under 21
years of age) or spouse accompanying or following to join a principal
to prevent the separation of family members, as well as for an
applicant born in the United States or in a foreign state of which
neither parent was a native or resident. Alternate chargeability is
desirable when the visa cut-off date for the foreign state of a parent
or spouse is more advantageous than that of the applicant's foreign
state.
As established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, preference is
the visa category that can be assigned based on relationships to U.S.
citizens or legal permanent residents. Family-based immigration falls
under two basic categories: unlimited and limited. Preferences
established by law for the limited category are:
Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their minor children, if any.
Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, and unmarried
sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents.
Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their spouses and minor children.
Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
and their spouses and minor children provided the U.S. citizen is at
least 21 years of age.
The Priority Date is normally the date on which the petition to accord
the applicant immigrant status was filed, generally with U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). VO subdivides the annual
preference and foreign state limitations specified by the INA into
monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily-qualified applicants
which have been reported to VO are compared each month with the
numbers available for the next regular allotment. The determination of
how many numbers are available requires consideration of several
variables, including: past number use; estimates of future number use
and return rates; and estimates of USCIS demand based on cut-off date
movements. Once this consideration is completed, the cutoff dates are
established and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order
of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy
all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is
considered "Current." For example: If the monthly allocation target is
10,000, and we only have 5,000 applicants, the category can be
"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.
The cut-off date is the priority date of the first
documentarily-qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a
visa number. For example, if the monthly target is 10,000 and we have
25,000 applicants, then we would need to establish a cut-off date so
that only 10,000 numbers would be allocated. In this case, the cut-off
would be the priority date of the 10,001st applicant.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are
entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st,
8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers
under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a
month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the 14th under the
8th, etc.) VO attempts to establish the cut-off dates for the
following month on or about the 8th of each month. The dates are
immediately transmitted to consular posts abroad and USCIS, and also
published in the Visa Bulletin and online at the website
www.travel.state.gov. Visa allotments for use during that month are
transmitted to consular posts. USCIS requests visa allotments for
adjustment of status cases only when all other case processing has
been completed. I am submitting the latest Visa Bulletin for the
record or you can click on: Visa Bulletin for June 2007.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM AND CLARIFICATION OF SOME
FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS:
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified
at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every
applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date
been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments
are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported
�documentarily qualified� (or, theoretically ready for interview) each
month. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to
another, with the inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
If an applicant is reported documentarily qualified but allocation of
a visa number is not possible because of a visa availability cut-off
date, the demand is recorded at VO and an allocation is made as soon
as the applicable cut-off date advances beyond the applicant's
priority date. There is no need for such applicant to be reported a
second time.
Visa numbers are always allotted for all documentarily-qualified
applicants with a priority date before the relevant cut-off date, as
long as the case had been reported to VO in time to be included in the
monthly calculation of visa availability. Failure of visa number
receipt by the overseas processing office could mean that the request
was not dispatched in time to reach VO for the monthly allocation
cycle, or that information on the request was incomplete or inaccurate
(e.g., incorrect priority date).
Allocations to Foreign Service posts outside the regular monthly cycle
are possible in emergency or exceptional cases, but only at the
request of the office processing the case. Note that, should
retrogression of a cut-off date be announced, VO can honor
extraordinary requests for additional numbers only if the applicant's
priority date is earlier than the retrogressed cut-off date. Not all
numbers allocated are actually used for visa issuance; some are
returned to VO and are reincorporated into the pool of numbers
available for later allocation during the fiscal year. The rate of
return of unused numbers may fluctuate from month to month, just as
demand may fluctuate. Lower returns mean fewer numbers available for
subsequent reallocation. Fluctuations can cause cut-off date movement
to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly
possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches
the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7 percent is a
cap, which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed.
Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The
country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the
annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This
limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled,
however. A portion of the numbers provided to the Family Second
preference category is exempt from this per-country cap. The American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) removed the
per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant
demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of
such numbers available.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by
documentarily-qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds
the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation,
that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may
require the establishment of a cut-off date which is earlier than that
which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The
prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same
percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual
limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off
dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off
dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
The committee submitted several questions that fell outside of VO�s
area of work, therefore, I have provided in my written testimony today
the answers only to those questions that the Department of State can
answer. Thank you for this opportunity.
more...
champu
02-18 07:08 PM
Kudos to desi3933!
rajesh1972 - You should ask your wife to consider giving birth child in US land, who knows your baby may be a next president.
Also, you may consider naming him/her Barack...;)
rajesh1972 - You should ask your wife to consider giving birth child in US land, who knows your baby may be a next president.
Also, you may consider naming him/her Barack...;)
coolngood4u80
01-25 08:38 PM
Is this only for phds or for master graduates too?
more...
leoindiano
07-09 02:03 PM
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=22772
Here's what uscis said...
Here's what uscis said...
snathan
05-19 04:25 PM
The statue of limitation is, i believe, 2 years.
No, its only 12 months.
No, its only 12 months.
more...
gc_chahiye
09-27 01:42 PM
^^^^^^^ bump
Appreciate any advice...thanks
habils advice is best at this point: try to get a quota-exemp H1 (if you cant extend your F1 and study some more)
Appreciate any advice...thanks
habils advice is best at this point: try to get a quota-exemp H1 (if you cant extend your F1 and study some more)
kondur_007
10-13 03:09 PM
Is it mandatory to wear business formal? I am going to get visa stamping with my wife, she is applying for H4.
Thanks!
I wore a T-shirt and Jeans; they did not ask me any questions.
No need to be "formal"; especially if you are going for re-stamping or already living in US. When you go back to your home country, it is "vacation" for you and so you are normally going to be casual.
Good Luck.
Thanks!
I wore a T-shirt and Jeans; they did not ask me any questions.
No need to be "formal"; especially if you are going for re-stamping or already living in US. When you go back to your home country, it is "vacation" for you and so you are normally going to be casual.
Good Luck.
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.
GCBy3000
08-23 04:28 PM
I dunno from where they come upwith number. From the same site look at this link
http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableI.pdf - This is given at foreign out post.
EB - 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
43129 39289 29712 28624 21290
and compare with
http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableII.pdf
and compare with below data.
YEAR **** EB1 ****** EB2 ****** EB3 **** Total(EB)
2000 *** 2,306 ***** 7,233 ***** 5,360 *** 15,381
2001 *** 3,543 **** 21,355 **** 16,405 *** 41,720
2002 *** 2,820 **** 21,310 **** 17,428 *** 41,919
2003 *** 1,266 ***** 8,536 ****10,680 *** 20,818 :confused:
2004 *** 2,998 **** 16,262 **** 19,962 *** 39,496
2005 *** 6,336 **** 16,687 **** 23,399 *** 47,160 :)
These figures are from this link
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html
http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableI.pdf - This is given at foreign out post.
EB - 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
43129 39289 29712 28624 21290
and compare with
http://travel.state.gov/pdf/FY05tableII.pdf
and compare with below data.
YEAR **** EB1 ****** EB2 ****** EB3 **** Total(EB)
2000 *** 2,306 ***** 7,233 ***** 5,360 *** 15,381
2001 *** 3,543 **** 21,355 **** 16,405 *** 41,720
2002 *** 2,820 **** 21,310 **** 17,428 *** 41,919
2003 *** 1,266 ***** 8,536 ****10,680 *** 20,818 :confused:
2004 *** 2,998 **** 16,262 **** 19,962 *** 39,496
2005 *** 6,336 **** 16,687 **** 23,399 *** 47,160 :)
These figures are from this link
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html
suresh_la
12-01 05:16 PM
Hi
If any one can answer my question above , please
I am in dilema
Thanks in advance
If any one can answer my question above , please
I am in dilema
Thanks in advance
No comments:
Post a Comment