485 denied due to Visa unavailability.

G

greencream

Registered Users (C)
Hello,

My 485 was denied stating that "Your approved employment preference visa petition falls under EB3. Your priority date for the visa petition is May 5, 2003. The cut off date listed on the US depart. visa bulletin for the month that you filed your app., January 2005, in the employment preference category 3 was January 1, 2002. The priority date of your approved visa petition is not earlier than the appropriate cutoff date listed on the US depart of states visa bulletin for the month that you filed. Accordingly, the form I 485 application to register permanent residence, that you filed January 10, 2005 may not be approved and is hereby denied as a matter of law"

--My question?
why is INS considering the Notice date of Jan 10, 2005(Cut off date was Jan 2002) and not the received date which is Dec 29, 2004(Dates were current).

AND

What are the chances if I file MTR?

Thanks for any response.
 
The Receipt Date displayed on the I-485 receipt is Dec. 29, 2004? If yes, you should have a good chance with the MTR.

But if Dec. 29, 2004 is the date you believe it arrived at USCIS based on Fedex/UPS tracking, it will be very difficult to convince them to use that date if their records show a date in January 2005.
 
I just looked at my I-485 paperwork and saw that they made a similar mistake with mine. The notice date on the I-485 receipt is a few days later than the receipt date, which is OK because there is usually a few days lag between receiving the application and printing the receipt notice. But then the receipt date shown on the I-485 Approval Notice matches the Notice Date from the I-485 receipt notice, instead of matching the original receipt date. Fortunately my PD was current for both dates, otherwise they could have denied me if they looked at the wrong date.
 
Thanks Jackolantern,
I too looked at all my old notices, thanks Jackolantern for making me look back at my old Nocites.
When INS transfered my case to TSC they messed up my Receipt date. In the Transfer Notice the Receipt date is January 10, 2005.

Is it worth mentioning to INS the mess up on my Transfer Notice date OR just show them
the 485 AOS correct Received date of December 29, 2004?

Is the Received date and the Receipt date the same ?
 
greencream said:
Is it worth mentioning to INS the mess up on my Transfer Notice date OR just show them
the 485 AOS correct Received date of December 29, 2004?
Click to expand...
I think it would be better to just focus on what is on the receipt notice, which is the document that has the correct information. Point out that the denial notice was incorrect when they said you filed on Jan 10, as your receipt notice shows USCIS received it in December.
Is the Received date and the Receipt date the same ?
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
After reading this, I checked my 485 transfer notices, transfered from TSC to NSC, they messed up with receipt date. The receipt date on transfer notice is the notice date of 485 receipt, NOT the 485's receipt date. Is there any thing we can do to correct this?

Further the priority date is blank in both notices.
 
The same issue with my receipt date after Transfer

All,

After reading this post I went back and checked my notices. My case was transferred to NBC last Month.

On my original 485 notice, Received Date is August 15 2007 and Notice Date is October 12 2007.
But the Transfer to NBC notice has Received Date as October 12 2007 and Notice Date as February 2 2009 (which is the date they transferred it to NBC so that looks correct).

So should we contact USCIS about the error in received date? I had applied during the 2007 July Window.

Please some one advice.
Thanks,
 
My wife's Transfer notice got returned by post office since the status change and address change happened on same day.
So once it got returned to USCIS, I called them and they sent it back. Also one day later they sent a letter saying your recent inquiry was about notice not delivered and on that Filing date does say 15th august and not 12th october so looks like in their system they do have it right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top