What beats me is that its just TSC sending RFE. Not a single RFE for applicants whose service center is NSC.
Printable View
What beats me is that its just TSC sending RFE. Not a single RFE for applicants whose service center is NSC.
kd,Quote:
Originally Posted by kd2008
Could be. It is possible. I want to see if the pattern continues. It certainly would weed those cases out.
Also thinking out loud, Indian EB jobs are concentrated in IT fields and within that concentrated in the consultancy model.
Lay offs and especially employer changes seem to be especially prevalent in that area (almost part of the job). USCIS must also be aware that large numbers of people are using the AC21 I-140 portability law to change employer.
Unapproved cases filed in October 2011 to April 2012 will be 15-20 months old when they become current again and a lot may have happened in that time span.
I realise that sounds very much like profiling and I am not sure whether that is something USCIS do. They have appeared to use certain indicators in the past on other areas to use resource "effectively".
Alternatively, it may be a policy change and we will see the same repeated in the future for EB3-ROW cases that do not get approved this FY. That is also a strong possibility and may be more likely. It may be relevant that it has happened immediately after the final RFE/NOID memo was published. It just happens that the pending EB2-I cases are the first to feel the effect. I did notice that some EB3-I cases that are about to become current have also received RFE.
I do wish USCIS or SCOPS would work in a consistent manner. It may change, but currently this appears to be a TSC only initiative.
If the RFE phenomenon is real and not simply a system glitch, then at least USCIS have approached it in a manner that allows 45 days before the dates become current again. Employment Authorization and EVL information is not particularly onerous to obtain and everybody has the chance to respond well before the dates become current again. It should not delay any approvals at all unless RFEs start to involve biometric appointments in large numbers.
What is a little strange at the moment is the number of Dependents receiving RFE requests, some of which already seem inappropriate.
As I said, I would prefer to see
a) That this is not a system glitch at TSC.
b) What the pattern of RFE requests is.
It is definitely an interesting development. It is perhaps too early to analyse it, but human nature does not allow that! :) So apologies for the rather rambling post. It's difficult to understand what USCIS do and why.
To me the question is if CO aware that these RFEs are being sent out ? Assuming it is not a glitch, there has to be some historic stats on response time, response accuracy %, etc. This will drive how far in the future the COD will move. If the response accuracy is 75%, for example, that will have a major implication than if it was 90%.
You are spot on spec, even though my intial inclination and hope was possible system glitch, now as we saw atleast 2 RFEs in mail already asking EAD/ EVL, it might be related to new guidelines to have everything uptodate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
I think there is still plenty of time as most wouldn't need more than a week to respond.
all these applications are no longer "pre-adjudicated" and CO will not know the exact DD until the responses are received, so i am wondering how the COD for august bulletin will play out?
These applications are definitely in the demand data but theoretically they are getting pulled out of "demand" and back in to "pending inventory". If that's the case, then assignment of SOFAD will be tricky and the COD will move further ahead than if CO was doing a straight demand data-based movement. this can be a total cluster as FIFO might be lost in this scenario as people without RFEs will automatically jump ahead of those with RFEs when dates become current regardless of PD.Quote:
Originally Posted by indiani
As several thousands of RFE responses needs to be looked at , there might be a chance that all these won't be processed in time and by sept bulletin CO might decide to move it way further into late 2008.Quote:
Originally Posted by vizcard
FIFO of course cannot be implemented in the current scenario.
I think CO might be thinking " I am giving X number to India" but not necessarily care whether a 2007 PD applicant gets GC before late 2008 applicant.
If we "2007 PD" folks miss again even if we do everything the right way, it will be another disaster for us.
Viz, these cases in the DD are already existing in the pending inventory as well. As you suggest the RFE response accuracy % would make an impact in the wastage .
Spec has the most reasonable point, shooting RFEs ahead would reduce the wastage % giving ample time to respond or else reallocate the visa to someone.
Sorry for the confusion - what i meant was that they are taken out of Demand i.e pre-adjudicated and back in "pending" i.e. not pre-adjudicated ... not specifically referring to the documents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanmani
The response accuracy % (or some better term for it) won't affect consumption of visas ... it'll affect who consumes them though. For example,
Demand up to March 2008 - 10000 (made up numbers). If you go by straight demand, if you have 10000 spillover, people up to March 2008 will get visas.
Now assume 50% of the people get RFEs and 80% of those people will respond and their responses will get processed in time. True demand that'll consumer spillover reduces to 9000. that'll mean there will be 1000 visas for folks post March 2008.
That's why % of RFEs sent out and % processed are all both items (I've lumped them together as response accuracy %). This is not a new phenomenon but its especially relevant this year due to the wide range of spillover projections and the timing for releasing those.
I think you described the scenario well.Quote:
Originally Posted by vizcard
The following is not in response to your post but my unfortunate situation which i share with few thousands of late 2007 and early 2008 ( original EB2 applicants )
The RFE's gives a hope for people who have PD in mid to late 2008, at the same time some anxiety to folks in late 2007 ( including me ).
There is always some degree of anxiety whenever RFE is sent no matter how straight forward it is, as i don't know whether the IO will pick up my file "pre-adjudicate" and issue a GC or else perhaps issue to later PD and pick up the file after dates retrogressed.
This time around when the dates become current, i will certainly keep calling L2 and if needed local congressman/ senator's office as it has become almost decades long journey of uncertainity. ( BTW: I came to this country in 2001 as a physician and didn't have a clue what I was getting into )
My cousin who has B.com from india ( anyone form india understand how easy it is to finish one ) came 1 yr ago in 2012 on L1 ( hardly can speak english ) got GC in EB1C and I know someone who has EB2 2010 PD got GC last year.
i am not if anyone posted about this memo...if someone has,, let me know ,,i will delete this post..ty
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memo...%20(Final).pdf
I think I saw this on trackitt/ this forum recently but no need to delete it as its useful info.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackbrown_890
I think this memo in fact tilts the tendency towards issuance of RFE where "eligibility" is of concern. But it does not mandate RFE's
what bothers me is that it was done one on such a massive scale on the same day without merits of each individual case. let me give my example, anyone with any amount of general knowledge in this country knows that a doctor will have the oppurtunity to work in "same/similar" job, so sending RFE to me is just waste of time and money to Govt. and me ( as RFE's consume time for govt. without generating new revenue and by doing that they are not gaining any "useful additional information" )
The point I was trying to make is that even though my profession is perhaps not even as intellectual as other IT jobs etc., it is just a fact that the jobs for us are there everywhere in the country and i guess almost all IO officers will be aware of this ( i understand for the requirement of all basic documents but repeat EVL's is waste of time as I ahve sent one 6 months ago )
I think we just have to deal with this as it comes at us for the timebeing until CIR pased then the entire issue of COD might be an issue of the past (especially with recapture of visas ).
longwait,Quote:
Originally Posted by longwait100
I suppose in many ways it depends on what you mean by "move the dates aggressively". Personally, I think a move to the end of August 2008 would be very aggressive.
The difference in number for a date in February (CO's most favourable date) and the end of August is 8-9k.
8-9k would be a sizable % of the total number of visas available to EB2-I IMO (perhaps 50% or more).
If 50% more cases are "ready to go" and the dates move to the end of August, the chances of approval drop to 67%. A fair number of people with earlier PD would likely lose out again as later PD were approved and the visa numbers were exhausted.
But quite apart from that, I do not know where or how Oh Law Firm have reached the conclusion about August 2008.
I've integrated the data I had before from Trackitt with the googledocs document (before someone "helpfully" deleted the information in the sheet).
Attachment 444
That data still doesn't suggest that RFEs in any great quantity have been received beyond March 2008 as far I can interpret it.
Quite where Oh get an August 2008 date is quite beyond me. They do not say how they arrived at that conclusion.
Then there's a significant risk of wastage because Sept 10 would be the the OCt VB i.e. next fiscal year. So he would almost need to move it ahead another couple of months just in case.. no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanmani
Trackitt update
Few EB3I also received RFE emails on June 14th. Recipients' PDs are in Feb 2003 while the cut off date as of July 1st is 22nd Jan 2003.
Looks like the RFEs are genuine! (?)
Based on early Trackitt responses, It seems the RFEs are not a system glitch. So far it's about EVL in all the 3 cases.
This is very informative, would like to see Q/Spec/Kanmani's analysis. This is turning out dramatic, if everbody is not going to get RFE and they are sent out while the dates are not current, then there won't be automatic assigning of visa number for these cases.
REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE
On January1 1,2011., USCIS issued a Policy Memorandum directing Service Centers processing certain
visa-retrogressed applications for adjustment of status to request additional information prior to a final
decision. This policy is reflected in Chapter 23.5(t)(4) of the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM).
Specifically, review of your application shows that:
- You are an Employment-Based Principal Applicant
- An immigrant visa is not immediately available, and
- A valid job offer may be required for your adjustment.
First, please submit proof of your continuous employment authorization in the U.S. from the date you
filed your Form I-485 to the present. Such evidence may include copies of:
- Employment Authorization Documents (EADs, Forms I-688 or I-766) granted to you by USCIS
- Form l-797 approval notices, showing you were granted status in an employment-authorized
nonimmigrant classification, or
- Copies of Form I-94 Arrival Departure Records showing you were admitted to the U.S. in an
employment-authorized nonimmigrant status.
Second, you must submit a currently dated letter from your petitioning (Form I-140) employer, verifying
that their job offer to you continues to exist. If their job offer no longer exists or you no longer intend to
work for the original I-140 employer, you may be eligible to adjust pursuant to visa portability under
section 204() of the Immigration and Nationality Act if:
- Your Form I-485 application has been pending for 180 days or more, AND
- Your new intended permanent employment is in the same or similar occupational classification
as the original Form I-140 job.
Note that the current job offer letter from your original or new employer must state the title an( duties
of the offered position, the minimum educational training requirement the-date you began ( or will
begin) employment and the offered salary or wage. This letter should be on company letterhead and
signed, in the original, by a person authorized by the organization to make or confirm an offer of
permanent employment.
Failure to submit a response is grounds for the denial of your application. A response is required
regardless of whether an immigrant visa is currently available to you. Your case must remain pending
until a visa becomes available to you as per the U.S. Department of State's monthly Visa Bulletin,
available online at www.travel.state.gov under 'Visas'.
tackle's attorney has received the RFE physical copy....http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showth...6377#post36377
Bieber,
I don't see a (t) sub-division under chapter 23.5 of AFM , the chapter ends with a (p), but nowadays am misreading too. Without that I can't understand the circumstances/necessity of this RFE format being printed in the AFM itself.
Moreover I have not seen the substance of the RFEs that were issued during PDs 2006-2007 clearance. Q/Spec might have a informations of those RFEs.
beiber,
That's quite interesting. What was the source?
There is no 23.5(t) section in the publicly available AFM. The last section is (p).
A quick bit of research makes me think it is actually Chapter 23.5(f)(4) of the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM). http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/A.../0-0-0-31.html
Interestingly that is not in the publicly available version of the AFM either, nor can I find it by searching. It does not appear in the Policy and Procedural Memoranda section on the USCIS website.Quote:
PM-602-0026 -- AD10-44 (1/11/2011) -- Chapter 23.5(f)(4) -- This memorandum revises the AFM by adding Chapter 23.5(f)(4) to clarify the Evidence of Compliance with Employment Requirement Prior to Final Adjudication of Employment-Based Adjustment of Status Application.
Perhaps someone else might have better luck, but I suspect it may be a redacted section. The AFM has been updated since the Memo above.
As far as the RFE content, my take is:
Quote:
REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE
On January1 1,2011., USCIS issued a Policy Memorandum directing Service Centers processing certain
visa-retrogressed applications for adjustment of status to request additional information prior to a final
decision. This policy is reflected in Chapter 23.5(t)(4) of the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM).
Specifically, review of your application shows that:
- You are an Employment-Based Principal Applicant
- An immigrant visa is not immediately available, and
- A valid job offer may be required for your adjustment.
First, please submit proof of your continuous employment authorization in the U.S. from the date you
filed your Form I-485 to the present. Such evidence may include copies of:
- Employment Authorization Documents (EADs, Forms I-688 or I-766) granted to you by USCIS
- Form l-797 approval notices, showing you were granted status in an employment-authorized
nonimmigrant classification, or
- Copies of Form I-94 Arrival Departure Records showing you were admitted to the U.S. in an
employment-authorized nonimmigrant status.
They are checking that the applicant has not accumulated more Unauthorized Employment than 245(k) would allow for.
Second, you must submit a currently dated letter from your petitioning (Form I-140) employer, verifying
that their job offer to you continues to exist.
They are checking a valid job continues to exist.
If their job offer no longer exists or you no longer intend to
work for the original I-140 employer, you may be eligible to adjust pursuant to visa portability under
section 204() of the Immigration and Nationality Act if:
- Your Form I-485 application has been pending for 180 days or more, AND
- Your new intended permanent employment is in the same or similar occupational classification
as the original Form I-140 job.
A reminder of the AC21 I-140 portability rules.
Note that the current job offer letter from your original or new employer must state the title an( duties
of the offered position, the minimum educational training requirement the-date you began ( or will
begin) employment and the offered salary or wage. This letter should be on company letterhead and
signed, in the original, by a person authorized by the organization to make or confirm an offer of
permanent employment.
Failure to submit a response is grounds for the denial of your application. A response is required
regardless of whether an immigrant visa is currently available to you. Your case must remain pending
until a visa becomes available to you as per the U.S. Department of State's monthly Visa Bulletin,
available online at www.travel.state.gov under 'Visas'.
Some more detail on the information required in the EVL.
Since it may well be a different job to that in the approved I-140, they are also checking that it "same or similar" and fulfills the criteria for the Category the applicant is applying under. e.g. an applicant couldn't be approved under EB2, if the job that was going to be performed would only qualify under EB3.
Spec, Kanmani
I copied it from Trackitt, It looks like user just posted the content of RFE
It appears to a standard format that would be followed in times to come. One more blow to legal Ebs to tie them in knots. No doubt RFEs will have to be replied reviwed and decided and all takes time. I do not know if it is tied with any profiling(cases with AC21's or any sepcific sector)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bieber
can USCIS process 10,000 plus additional application in 2 months?
If not is there a chance of wastage or leaving some 2007 applicants again as they somehow can't get to the application before the dates retrogress?
I already was worried about some kind of nightmare scenario when the dates were held up that long back.
Now GC looks up purely luck based for indians (coming here on EB ) unless EB1 .
what if lets say they don't get to an applicant on time and they wait another year and another RFE and possibly missing again ( even though this is a far-fetched scenario ) ?
I think this might in all likelyhood just profiling. there are folks who has just sent proof of employment as recent as couple of months ago and they still got RFE in this massive, unprecendent, illogical ( or may be they found logic in profiling indians) way.
I wish Murthy or someone would have interest in calling out USCIS on this but I think they will also have more business as atleats some applicants will use their service to reply.
Gurus,
Why only TSC filers are getting RFE's. My case is with NSC. PD is Jan 2008. Do we need to wait few more days?
Thanks
My RFE is to confirm that I'm still employed, in the same job, offer is still open, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by bieber
Attorney is in process of responding.
I don't think Murthy alone can or would want to do anything if there is a hint of profiling. I think it would have to come from an organization like ** or actual applicants. all would have to contact/request their reps./senators to inquire on this issue. It will be hard to prove it too. So far trackitt data shows, more thn 95% (that is big number) RFEs were issued to Indians in EB category.. still no RFEs at this scale shows up on any other categories on and around June 14. no rfes for FB so far on Trackitt.. need more data to support profiling,,Quote:
Originally Posted by indiani
I agree with you on almost every point you made.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackbrown_890
This issue is somewhat hard to prove that they intentionally profiled but whatever their rationale was , to most logical minds this appears rather illogical ( not illegal) ,
even in the case of IRS scandal, no one knew about it until there was a whistleblower, Teaparty is one of the most powerful lobby group and still almost every official involved denied that they profiled saying they acted within the law.
Thats why I think too many unnecessary rules will lead to rather abuse, here in this case its not only applicants waste their time, its several hundreds of hours of federal employees also waste their time.
This time around once its current even for 1 day, i will reach out to rubio's office or Ross's office in FL and will be following with several calls.
It would help if the AFM section mentioned was available.
Without knowing what that says, it is pointless to speculate, but the title of the Memo suggests it is applicable to everyone.
Other users on Trackitt confirmed the same RFE content. The glitch scenario can be ruled out at this point.
Outstanding questions
What % of EB2I in the date range received the RFE
Why NSC not issued any RFEs yet
I had only online status changed to RFE but did not receive text / email alert, I tried to call L2 officer but it was late so i was told by L1 to call in the morning again to be able to be transferred live to L2 as it will take 2-3 hrs to be transferred.
another option was to leave L2 a message and wait for response 3-4 days later,
it might not help as they might just indicate what is already stated online and moreover I might receive actual RFE by then.
Even though my immdediate reaction and hope was a glitch scenario, that possibility is ruled out and appears that almost everyone ( atleast so far that what appears to be the case ) received EVL/ EADor 797 requirements.
My i-94 which was given at port of entry has expiration date of june 2013 but I have new concurrent H-1 ( with current employer ) which is valid for another year and also i have EAD. EVL might take few days but I should not have a problem to get it.
Overall this is another rather unpredictable and somewhat unfortunate incident this fiscal year for EB2 folks who were ignored last fiscal year.
Not sure if atleast 2007 folks will get some relief by september
My lawyer also received rfe for my wife today. My status still says Acceptance. And they are asking same information for my wife.. Evl.. 94 .. Ead..etc. I can get everything else for my wife but how do I get evl for dependent. Any suggestions on what to do? My lawyer has asked for my evl in anticipation of rfe in my case. But my online status hasn't changed as of r
Today.
My Speculations:
#1.
USCIS officers has ran out of work. In these times of "spending cuts", they fear that that they maybe laid off. So they found themselves some work at the expense of hapless applicants.
#2.
In context of recent heavy EB1 usage, they suspect a lot of EB2 ers got ported to EB1. They want to make sure the EB2 applications that are likely to be approved in near future are real cases. That way they won't waste those visa numbers.
Can anyone tell me if porters (filed I-485 in EB3I prior to July 2007) to EB2I are also getting RFE or is it just people who have pending I-485 from EB2I. This can tell us if porters are getting counted?
I have EVL format which is from sept 2012 ( had RFe about it then ), I think once RFE is confirmed that it is infact is about EVL and copies of status ( which i think either EAD or 797 ) then
I will just change the date of the EVL letter get it signed again and send copies of EAD and 797 ( i-94 not sure whether to add, this i obtained at POE and its expiry date is june 2013 )
I think they are asking copy of one of the documents and not all of them.
I think there is a good reason to believe that every RFE will look like the ones which are already posted like the EVL etc.,
not sure how long it might take to reach FL
This has been a concern of mine too. There is a definite chance that some RFE responses end up in someone's desk who just sits on it until dates retrogress.Quote:
Originally Posted by indiani
This has been a concern of mine too. There is a definite chance that some RFE responses end up in someone's desk who just sits on it until dates retrogress.[/QUOTE]
several things should happen for the application to be adjudicated when dates become current.
The applicant should receive the RFE ( USCIS is not known to be 100% competent).
The RFE is able to be sent back on time ( getting hold of employer's signature might take sometime for few not all ).
The RFE sent back should reach them ( not so difficult when we fedex)
The RFE should be satisfactory ( burden is on us and it depends on the interpretation of IO )
The file should be picked up among several thousands when dates become current ( history tells us FIFO won't be followed )
Bottomline: This RFE- frenzy surely was not something that anyone anticipated or enjoying
RFE went to attorney and they have sent me a copy in email ( which was scanned so can't cut and paste ) but it is exactly the same as everyone else previously posted.
So please check with your attroney as USCIS may just send to attorney and you might get it later or never.
I am preparing on a "war-footing" and plan to send it within a week.
Attorney said everyone of their clients from TSC got exactly same RFE and no other service centers have sent RFE. ( USCIS not following uniform procedures and rules )
Just saw this on Murthy, looks like they are also puzzled about the employment authorization requirement for dependents.
http://www.murthy.com/2013/06/17/new...al-i-485-rfes/
Since RFE are issued only for TSC applicants is this a way to make sure that all NSC applications are cleared on the first day. Hence RFE for people with PDs in late 2008 are also issued. I remember NSC were ahead in issuing FP notces as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by longwait100
Dependents requiring EVL will be hard one for the lawyers to solve. FL lawyers got the RFE. Neither my lawyer not I have still not received the RFE yet.
anyone want to post a generic EVL with all the requirements asked in the current RFE, i am planning to prepare one with help of paralegal today. also sending EAD/797 both.