Precisely ... since there is a long preadjud backlog ... there shouldn't be huge surprises and haphazzard approvals this year once peoples PDs become current.
Which is why .... if August doesn't move to Jan 2008 then Sep brings less hope because DoS / USCIS lose fine control over precisely where they need to move the date and Sep movement could be jerky.
To avoid such jerky movement ... the dates must move in August.Originally Posted by longwait100
I no longer provide calculations/predictions ever since whereismyGC.com was created.
I do run this site only as an administrator. Our goal is to improve clarity of GC process to help people plan their lives better.
Use the info at your risk. None of this is legal advice.
Forum Glossary | Forum Rules and Guidelines | If your published post disappeared, check - Lies and Misinformation thread
In the above example, EB2I 2010 case filed on a earlier date than EB2I 2007 case, Given that both the cases assigned to the same adjudicator, assuming today's 2004 COD, the 2010 case will be pre-adjudicated first.
My stand is different that of yours.
Q, I agree to disagree.
You can't take an extreme scenario and then make a general statement that RD rules processing order. That's all I would say on this.
If you still think that's not agreeable then - yes - lets agree to disagree.
I no longer provide calculations/predictions ever since whereismyGC.com was created.
I do run this site only as an administrator. Our goal is to improve clarity of GC process to help people plan their lives better.
Use the info at your risk. None of this is legal advice.
Forum Glossary | Forum Rules and Guidelines | If your published post disappeared, check - Lies and Misinformation thread
Q,
It is only you, considering the different scenario ( retrogression) not me!
In general, RD rules the processing priority, if the category is current they 100% go by Receipt Order. I have no doubt about it.
Actually you are now carving out a scenario here where category has to be current and (I assume you assume same category and country?).
So the general statement that RD rules is anyways wrong.
I rest my debate here because as intelligent you are .... you need to be forthcoming to say I misspoke or whatever. If not - this is futile to have any debate.
RD rules only in very narrow scenario is what my final take is. I would never advise people to look at RD. Just look at your PD and do your best to file ASAP when your date becomes current. Forget the rest. There are two many variables in play after you file and so the processing anyway is not going to be in the order you would like. But PD is definitely what you should care 10 times more than RD.
I no longer provide calculations/predictions ever since whereismyGC.com was created.
I do run this site only as an administrator. Our goal is to improve clarity of GC process to help people plan their lives better.
Use the info at your risk. None of this is legal advice.
Forum Glossary | Forum Rules and Guidelines | If your published post disappeared, check - Lies and Misinformation thread
I am going to give the cynical view because I think it is pretty random if the case is Current, whatever any regulations might say.
After all these cases were pre-adjudicated many months ago, they probably went to some central storage area. They will have to be pulled from there shortly before the dates become Current.
I think of it as a pack of cards.
Suppose the cases came out of storage perfectly sorted (it doesn't matter whether it is by RD or PD).
If there was just a single adjudicator, they could start at the top (earliest) and work their way down the pile. Perfect sequence would be preserved.
That's not the case - there are multiple adjudicators, so the pile has to be split.
Let's say there were 4 adjudicators (just to keep it simple). There are several options. I'll cover just 2.
a) Deal the cases as you would cards. Case 1 to Adjudicator 1 .... Case 4 to Adjudicator 4. Then Case 5 goes to Adjudicator 1 etc and sequence is again preserved fairly well.
b) Split the pile of cases into 2, then by 2 again to produce 4 piles. Give one pile to each Adjudicator. Adjudicator gets the first 25% of cases, Adjudicator gets cases 26-50% and so on until Adjudicator 4 gets cases 76-100%. In this case, approvals would be all over the place, particularly if one Adjudicator is quicker than the others. Add to that new cases for an Adjudicator to work on being delivered on a daily basis to the individual cubicle storage area.
Option (b) is far easier and a lot quicker to do. It may not entirely follow the law, but laziness rules.
Other options give somewhere between the 2 shown above.
Now multiply that by potentially 100s of Adjudicators ( I have no idea how many there are) at 2 entirely different Service Centers. I think keeping any semblance of order is nigh on impossible in the real world. Technically, it could be done, but I doubt very much that is what really happens in a retrogressed scenario where files are being pulled from storage.
Where a Category/Group is perpetually Current, then normal workflow would give some semblance of order, since generally they would not end up in non-local storage.
Until paper based cases are eliminated and cases are served electronically to adjudicators as they are ready to process another one, I don't see how any order can be preserved.
As I said, I am cynical about the whole issue. It's a moot point anyway, because we have no way of really knowing what goes on. My last on the subject.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
Hi,
I think the question asked was after considering the fact that priority dates are current. Basically if dates are current for a 2009 PD who had filed in Feb 2012 and a new porter from EB3-EB2 with PD 2006, it might be that 2009 PD gets adjudicated first.
This is generally bad for most of us. I personally would prefer that it should be based on PD. The reason being:
1. Lets say the dates move to Jan 1, 2008
2. Random pickings might end up in a scenario where 500 new porters from 2006 do not get picked
3. The demand data will show 500 pending applications for 2006
4. Dates will eventually retrogress to 2006
If it were based on PD then at least the 2006 and 2007 applicants get drained. May be lesser people with 2008 and 2009 get approved. But at least the dates wont retrogress to 2006 once the numbers are used up. The dates might stay at 2008 allowing many more applicants time to file 485 and get EAD.
Quick question and a bit off topic: for a first time I 485 filer, when can you send in your I485 application? Lets say the VB comes out tomorrow and dates move to march end 2008, if I have my documents in order and medical etc done can I send my application the very next day VB comes out?
desitiger,
The VB only becomes effective on the first day of the month it relates to. e.g. the next one will become effective on August 01, 2013. Cut Off Dates in the VB are not effective until that date
Any application received by USCIS with a (PD that was not Current in the previous VB) before the effective date will be rejected, since the PD will not be Current on that date.
Simple answer:- your application should not be received by USCIS until August 01, 2013 if it becomes Current in the August VB.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
No You cannot.
In your case the application is valid only if USCIS receives it on or after 1st August 2013 but before the next retrogression bulletin takes into effect.
With my limited knowledge and based on my readings from multiple sources, this is what will probably happen when EB2I dates advance in August/September bulletin. I have sighted the sources first then my thoughts afterwards.
From Multiple USCIS Documents“To maximize visa number usage while working off its backlog, USCIS has adopted a production strategy that focuses on completing cases where visas are immediately available and on working cases to the point just short of approval (pre-adjudication) where visas will be available in the coming months. Pre-adjudication includes completing all required background checks and resolving all eligibility issues except for visa availability. This allows for immediate approval and visa number allocation as visas become available for pre-adjudicated cases.”
“USCIS will finalize processing of visa-retrogressed cases when applicants' priority dates become available (current) based on the dates in the current month’s Visa Bulletin. If USCIS needs updated information from an applicant, we may send out correspondence such as requests for evidence or an interview notice.”
From SRWLawyers.com (Slightly old but still valid)
“USCIS submits requests for visa authorizations if all required case processing has been completed. Therefore, once the authorization has been granted, the case would be adjusted immediately, and could be forwarded to the "green card" processing facility. If the case is not within the established cut-off date the request goes into our "pending" demand file, which also contains the demand which has been received from our overseas posts. That demand is then used as the basis for the establishment of future cut-off dates.
When a USCIS authorization is made from the "pending" demand file an e-mail message is sent to a single address which each CIS Office has provided to the Immigrant Control and Reporting Division. The first page(s) of the message provides a summary listing of the A-numbers which have been authorized, and the following pages contain an individual authorization page for each A-number. That listing would be the same type as received if the case had been authorized when the USCIS Officer had originally submitted the request. Such authorizations are assumed to have been processed to conclusion during the month of authorization. If not, USCIS must notify VO that the case was not processed, the case record would then be deleted, and the case would be resubmitted to VO once the reasons for the deletion have been resolved.
If the Officer believes that a case should have been authorized, but has not received such notification, the program which is used to submit requests has a feature for checking on the status of individual A-numbers.
The authorizations from the "pending" demand file are sent to a central address to ensure that they are seen by someone should the officer who originally requested the case not be there (e.g., reassigned, on leave, etc.). If authorization is immediately available at the time of request the response would be send to the requesting officer, not the central address”
From THE OPERATION OF THE IMMIGRANT NUMERICAL CONTROL SYSTEM document.
“The determination of how many numbers are available requires consideration of several of variables, including: past number use; estimates of future number use and return rates; and estimates of Citizenship and Immigration Service demand based on cut-off date movements. Once this is done, the cut-off dates are established and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.”
My Conclusion based on the above documents.
a)Existing EB2I Demand Cases
These are applicants who submitted the I-485 application or ported before May 2012. The visas will be allocated during the VB tabulation process. The visas will be allocated to individuals but without identifying the adjudicating officer in USCIS. USCIS will reconnect the case with an adjudicating officer and do a final check before the GC is issued; there is still a possibility of RFE in some cases. If RFE is replied within the fiscal cutoff date GC will be given as visas are already allocated. If RFE is not replied before the cutoff date the visa number will be delinked from the case with the reason for delinking and visa number will go back to the common pool. Visa approvals will start from week one and continue throughout the month.
b)Porting/Interfile Cases
The reclassification of I485 will be initiated by USCIS as soon as PD gets current. The processing order should be based on new EB2 I-140 application date. Once the cases are allocated to adjudicating officer, it will be purely processing efficiency of the officer. In some cases RFE can still be generated. Majority of the processing is completed in these applications; it could take a few weeks to request for the visa number and visa number allocated. Visa allocation will be minimal in week one and two and will increase from week 3. Once USCIS submits the visa request to Visa Office, the processing will be based on PD.
c)New I-485
Regular USCIS process in application order, but there are way too many variables. The new I-485 cases will reflect in demand only in the next fiscal year.
Overall USCIS is supposed to do FIFO where PD is current, but with too many dependencies that rarely happens. Once the application is pre-adjudicated (Request Visa number), the visas are allocated purely based on PD. So if two cases are submitted to VO and one has an earlier PD, the earlier PD will be allocated visa first.
Guru's,
Sorry this has nothing to do with the current discussion topic of I-485 processing priority.
My priority date is March 2008 and just recently BALCA issued an approval of PERM in my favor. Does anyone know how long does DOL take to process the PERM once BALCA approves it? I am hopeful to get my I-140 & I-485 processed in the next 2 months with the priority dates probably moving to March 2008.
Thanks,
Hi Matt,
Thanks for summarizing the issue here.. I have a follow-on question on what made you take May 2012 as baseline for Category (a) Existing EB2I Demand Cases.
If interfile is completed as part of new I140 approval ( which means the priority date reflects the old date), shouldn't the porting cases be considered as existing demand. Taking specifics, my I140 was approved in Q4 2012 and the priority date showed as July 2005 which made me believe my case was counted as existing EB2I demand.
Thanks
a)From June 2012 onwards EB2I was 'U'.
b) Porting cases with a PD from Sep 04, filed after May 2012 is still counted in EB3 and not in EB2.
IJune05,
If I don't misunderstand,are you referring to the porting of priority date in the new EB2 I-140 as interfiling?
IJune05,
Not MATT, but I think I can answer this one.
It comes down to what the USCIS AFM says in 23.2 (l)(2)(L) (which every Adjudicator must follow):
In your specific case, your I-140 was approved in Q4 2012 (when the COD was 01SEP04) and I assume you have requested interfiling at some date after that.(L) The Priority Date must Be Current for the Basis to Which the Applicant Wishes to Convert .
In order to convert an adjustment application to a new basis involving a preference classification, the alien must be the beneficiary of an approved visa petition (pertaining to that new basis) which has a current visa availability date. With limited exceptions, a priority date is NOT transferable from one preference category to another, or from one petition to another.
Since your PD of July 2005 has never been Current under EB2 since your I-140 was approved and you requested interfiling, USCIS have been unable to request a visa under the EB2 Category.
August 2013 (by all accounts) will be the first time that a PD of July 2005 has been Current since May 2012 (when the COD was 15AUG07). Only then can USCIS change the basis of your pre-existing I-485 from EB3 to EB2 and request a visa on that basis.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
Yes. I am using interfile as a word to describe the porting of the old priority dates to new I140. Have I been inaccurately using the word "interfile" ?
Thank you,
IJUne05, I just wanted to confirm it.
Interfiling is linking the old Eb3 I-485 to the newly ported I-140, for this to happen your attorney should send a formal letter to USCIS requesting the connection.
Only after interfiling is recognized by the USCIS , EB3 to Eb2 conversion is completed.
As Spec and Matt explained in their posts, EB3 to EB2 conversion cannot happen until the priority date is current in EB2, at this time USCIS cannot ask for visa number under eb2, you are yet to be counted in the demand data.
All clear thanks to Matt and SPEC
Now the puzzle?
How come the EB2 demand in 2006/2007 cases continuoulsy increased in the last 6 months as seen demand bulletin. If the reason is not porting? and only natural RFE clearance, then why the same is not noticed in demand figures post 2007?
which in fact reduced somewhat!
Below is the summary data as per USCIS Inventory, for EB2I the net addition was only 438 cases, there will be a few more if we consider Sep 04 to Dec 04. April Inventory is very much comparable to May Demand. When one considers DD there are differences, but not as per USCIS inventory. All that I could say is USCIS took more than normal time to pre-adjudicate some cases.
October 2012 USCIS Inventory for EB2I Cases from 2005-2010 = 41735
April 2013 USCIS Inventory for EB2I Cases from 2005-2010 = 42173
Net Difference in Inventory = 438 cases
May 2013 Demand from 2005 to 2010 =42200
I'm confused why demand data for Nov 12 bulletin was showing 37200 whereas Oct 12 pending I-485 was showing 42373. Both were created/calculated at around same time. If these cases (~5000) were not pre-adjudicated to be part of demand data, how come they were included in pending Oct 12, I-485 inventory.
April 13 pending inventory is showing 42978 and May 13 demand data has 42625 numbers. Difference is only 400 and is understandable.
What I mean is net increase in Demand (difference between Jan06 to Jan 07 ) increases continuously
but not the case in later PDs(post 2008).
To me it appeared addition of 100-150 per month between 2005 -2006 and 2006-2007 and 2007-2008
which I was contributing due to adding porters(approximately from Demand bulletins of Jan13 to Jun13.
erikbond101,
The USCIS Inventory counts cases whether pre-adjudicated or not. To be included in the Demand Data, the cases would have to be pre-adjudicated.
The difference in the Oct/Nov figures suggests that USCIS had still to pre-adjudicate several thousand cases. By April/May the pre-adjudication process was appears to have been fairly complete and the figures were therefore about the same.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
bvsamrat,
I think you are looking at beginning and end figures, without accounting for how they were arrived at.
The April 2013 Demand Data figures for EB2-I were very strange compared to March 2013. 2007 PD numbers reduced by 300 and 2008 PD figures reduced by 675. At the same time, PD 2005 and 2006 figures increased more than any other month.
Ignoring the March - April change, the average increase per month (where it has been possible to calculate it) has been:
PD 2004 -- 29 (covers only Sep-Dec 2004)
PD 2005 -- 46
PD 2006 -- 54
PD 2007 - 129
PD 2008 - 142
PD 2009 - 158
PD 2010 - 146
The period 2007-2010 includes new applications beyond July 2007, so it is no surprise these are higher. The average understates the increase, since that has slowed considerably since May 2013.
In general, we can consider 2004-2006 cases to be solely porting.
Others may disagree, but I don't think a rate of about 50 porting cases per month per PD Year is high enough to cover the number that might be expected. It is probably the slow pre-adjudication of cases that were received prior to June 2012.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
I agree there are few additions. The additions this fiscal is not significant enough to classify as porting. Given the fact that that EB2I cutoff dates did not move this fiscal suggests that porting cases are very high from 2003/2004. By that logic portings will be high from Sep 2004 to Mid 2007. General estimates for EB2I porting numbers are from 4000 - 7500. So far the additions are only in the hundreds. So between Sep 2004-2008 the additions that happened are pre-dominantly regrouping under earliest PD from existing EB2I I485 applications. For eg. some cases may have more than one approved I-140, and, rather than list the case by the earlier priority date, USCIS would have listed the case by the later priority date. Based on my observation, that could be the main reason for demand reduction in later PDs and the increase in earlier PDs.
There is also a chance of few hundred CP cases in EB2I demand. As April Inventory and May Demand data are relatively same, there is a chance that some cases in inventory of April was not there in May demand. So that is also one of the reasons for additions in June and July Demand data. A few hundred CP cases was just a general thought.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
