April Bulletin
- Thread starter r_sada
- Start date
explorer_inc
Registered Users (C)
Hi r_sada,
I have not seen the April bulletin yet. I think PD should definately move ahead as the two months progress in March indicated that the visa requirement was slowly decreasing.
By the way, I have read your prediction about the PD becoming current in 4Q. I also think that, as indicated in the Jan visa bulletin, the remaining pool of visa numbers from the AC 21 act should have a major impact on the PD in 4Q. However, I am not sure about the handling of GC applications by the US consulates once the PD becomes current. In other words, how would they prioritize the processing of applications from the backlog pool? I am sure they would not be able to handle all awaiting applications in a month. As soon as PD becomes current, would they start scheduling interviews based on the application received date? I will appreciate your response. Thanks, Explorer.
I have not seen the April bulletin yet. I think PD should definately move ahead as the two months progress in March indicated that the visa requirement was slowly decreasing.
By the way, I have read your prediction about the PD becoming current in 4Q. I also think that, as indicated in the Jan visa bulletin, the remaining pool of visa numbers from the AC 21 act should have a major impact on the PD in 4Q. However, I am not sure about the handling of GC applications by the US consulates once the PD becomes current. In other words, how would they prioritize the processing of applications from the backlog pool? I am sure they would not be able to handle all awaiting applications in a month. As soon as PD becomes current, would they start scheduling interviews based on the application received date? I will appreciate your response. Thanks, Explorer.
Sada,r_sada said:
I had requested the consulate to correct my PD. In response this is what they have sent
" Note: The current cut-off-date for E3 category for the month of April 2005 is 01APR2002. Your priority date is XXXXXX(corrected). We regret we are unable to predict when your turn will come. When your turn comes, you will be informed."
So I guess it is going to be only 1 month ahead
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh that sucks, only one month its moving.
I think they are moving to some ball park date based on visa number usage.
lot of attorney websites inlcuding Murthy had predicted that the PD will even go back with so many new applications coming in.
but april is only one month movement
/S
I think they are moving to some ball park date based on visa number usage.
lot of attorney websites inlcuding Murthy had predicted that the PD will even go back with so many new applications coming in.
but april is only one month movement
/S
My P.D. was wrongly mentioned in the 140 and went thru the rigmarole of getting it corrected. The consulate in their reply say "We have requested a visa number for you from the Department of State, Washington, D.C. We will schedule an appointment for you when the visa number is allocated." Does this mean that they ask for Visa numbers from DOS when the PD becomes current, get that and then call for the interview? Or is it that due to my changes they are asking for another Visa number like the NVC case number?
helpwithGC
Registered Users (C)
EB-3 Current in July based on AC21
r_sada,
I had a talk with my lawyer today and he was saying that we are highly optimistic about the EB-3 being current in July. As per him the Jan Visa Bulettin merely indicates that there are available visa numbers that could be used if we have some new bills passed like AC21 this year. Have you read anywhere that AC21 was not just for that year and that it would be applicable every year if needed?
I pray and hope you are right, even I am on the same boat and am hoping for it being current.
The only good news that I have heard for a long time is that WE DO have some republican sponsors for the HR 139 bill introduced by Bill Lantos ( The bill which enables the use of the unused visa numbers for "HEALTH CARE WORKERS") and that it might be passed in this session. If it happens all the RN's and others would be out from the EB-3 regular queue which would bring some respite to guys like us.
Waiting for a response.
Thanks
r_sada,
I had a talk with my lawyer today and he was saying that we are highly optimistic about the EB-3 being current in July. As per him the Jan Visa Bulettin merely indicates that there are available visa numbers that could be used if we have some new bills passed like AC21 this year. Have you read anywhere that AC21 was not just for that year and that it would be applicable every year if needed?
I pray and hope you are right, even I am on the same boat and am hoping for it being current.
The only good news that I have heard for a long time is that WE DO have some republican sponsors for the HR 139 bill introduced by Bill Lantos ( The bill which enables the use of the unused visa numbers for "HEALTH CARE WORKERS") and that it might be passed in this session. If it happens all the RN's and others would be out from the EB-3 regular queue which would bring some respite to guys like us.
Waiting for a response.
Thanks
helpwithgc,helpwithGC said:
Direct extract from the Jan 2005,Dept of State visa bulletin
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_2007.html
"""
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (Title I of Pub. L. 106 - 313 enacted on October 17, 2000) contained several provisions intended to increase the availability of Employment-based numbers. Pub. L. 106-313 recaptured those Employment-based numbers that were available but not used in Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000, creating a “pool” of 130,107 numbers which could be allocated to applicants in the Employment First, Second, and Third preference categories once the annual Employment-based numerical limit has been reached. Approximately 101,000 of these “pool” numbers remain available for use during FY-1005. Pub. L. 106-313 also 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.
""""
MY TAKE
The AC21 recaptured visa numbers from FY99, FY2000 to create a pool of 130K visas. the bulletin says that it can used only when annual numerical limit is reached. approximately 101K of thise are available for FY'05 (BAD TYPO in the visa bulletin as there is no FY-1005)
when can we reach the annual numerical limit, not until 4th quarter.
Why
Each quarter can exhaust only 27% of annual limit if it exhausts more than that the INA law says you hv to impose PD. which is what happened now.
So in 4th quarter when we exhaust the annual limits then we can take the numbers from 101k as per bulletin. Also i read the AC21 law and it clearly states that this recaptured number can be used in future fiscal years when they exhausted the annual limit.
Now to the question can a law or bill be passed to recapture some numbers from Fy01,02,03. It will positively impact poeple who are and will be processing labor through PERM and BEC.
Sure it can be and it most certainly will have to be considering the demand that is going to come through the backlog elimination centers.
I could only send letters and emails to congressmen explaining what kind of issue are we facing here and if they get to understand it they can get their acts together.
Hope for the best
/S
I had kind of hoped that the consulate would be wrong - but guess not looking at the April bulletin.... Any news on any congressional action? Only 2 months are remaining for them to act - otherwise wont it go into the 1st quarter again? Do the AC21 provisions come into play even if they do not act?r_sada said:Oh that sucks, only one month its moving.
I think they are moving to some ball park date based on visa number usage.
lot of attorney websites inlcuding Murthy had predicted that the PD will even go back with so many new applications coming in.
but april is only one month movement
/S
http://www.murthy.com/rumor.html
Whether the result of spreading an erroneous understanding of the law or being caught in media frenzy over an issue which is constantly changing, there are always items needing knowledgeable, clear-headed explanation. MurthyDotCom has established this page as a place for immigrants to find fiction separated from truth and the truth clarified by attorneys at The Law Office of Sheela Murthy.
Rumor : We have heard that there are rumors that retrogression will end by the summer of 2005. Posted Feb 14, 2005
Clarification : There is no one who can accurately predict these matters. Retrogression is caused by demand for the limited supply of visa numbers. Given that demand for employment-based visa numbers is expected to continue to increase, the end of retrogression is unlikely without a change in the law. The last time retrogression occurred it ended only due to a change in the law that allowed unused visa numbers from certain countries to be added back in to be used by everyone. Without a similar procedure or a legislative increase in numbers, retrogression is a likely fact of life. It will continue to be fueled by backlog reduction efforts at both the USCIS and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), as well as the new PERM labor certification procedure.
Retrogression recently expanded from EB3 skilled / professional workers to EB3 "other" workers. It is expected to expand to EB2 cases at some point in the future. Any immigration planning should take retrogression and The unavailability of visa numbers into account.
Whether the result of spreading an erroneous understanding of the law or being caught in media frenzy over an issue which is constantly changing, there are always items needing knowledgeable, clear-headed explanation. MurthyDotCom has established this page as a place for immigrants to find fiction separated from truth and the truth clarified by attorneys at The Law Office of Sheela Murthy.
Rumor : We have heard that there are rumors that retrogression will end by the summer of 2005. Posted Feb 14, 2005
Clarification : There is no one who can accurately predict these matters. Retrogression is caused by demand for the limited supply of visa numbers. Given that demand for employment-based visa numbers is expected to continue to increase, the end of retrogression is unlikely without a change in the law. The last time retrogression occurred it ended only due to a change in the law that allowed unused visa numbers from certain countries to be added back in to be used by everyone. Without a similar procedure or a legislative increase in numbers, retrogression is a likely fact of life. It will continue to be fueled by backlog reduction efforts at both the USCIS and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), as well as the new PERM labor certification procedure.
Retrogression recently expanded from EB3 skilled / professional workers to EB3 "other" workers. It is expected to expand to EB2 cases at some point in the future. Any immigration planning should take retrogression and The unavailability of visa numbers into account.
Dont agree w/Murthy.com
as you can be aware from my earlier posts, i dont agree with Murthy.com posts on this matter.
Im also disappointed that they dont even read the visa bulletin which clearly lays out there is no new legislation needed to re-use the existing pool of 101,000 numbers. They have been using this scar technique on the Eb2 for a while saying EB2 will retrogress from January. DOS has not even issued an advance notification that its coming down the pike.
We will beleive it when we see it. Its like people predicting interest/mortgage rates are going to go up for the past 1 1/2 years and now saying "I told you its going to go up".
Anyways, time will be a better judge,3 more months for the July bulletin(10th of June) to come out and let us see what happens.
/S
as you can be aware from my earlier posts, i dont agree with Murthy.com posts on this matter.
Im also disappointed that they dont even read the visa bulletin which clearly lays out there is no new legislation needed to re-use the existing pool of 101,000 numbers. They have been using this scar technique on the Eb2 for a while saying EB2 will retrogress from January. DOS has not even issued an advance notification that its coming down the pike.
We will beleive it when we see it. Its like people predicting interest/mortgage rates are going to go up for the past 1 1/2 years and now saying "I told you its going to go up".
Anyways, time will be a better judge,3 more months for the July bulletin(10th of June) to come out and let us see what happens.
/S
From http://www.isn.org/news/20001004070643.html
______________________________
(d) Recapture of Unused Employment-Based Immigrant Visas:
(1) In general: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the number of employment-based visas (as defined in paragraph (3)) made available for a fiscal year (beginning with fiscal year 2001) shall be increased by the number described in paragraph (2). Visas made available under this subsection shall only be available in a fiscal year to employment-based immigrants under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
(2) Number available:
(A) In general: Subject to subparagraph (B), the number described in this paragraph is the difference between the number of employment-based visas that were made available in fiscal year 1999 and 2000 and the number of such visas that were actually used in such fiscal years.
(B) Reduction: The number described in subparagraph (A) shall be reduced, for each fiscal year after fiscal year 2001, by the cumulative number of immigrant visas actually used under paragraph (1) for previous fiscal years.
(C) Construction: Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as affecting the application of section 201(c)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(c)(3)(C)).
(3) Employment-based visas defined: For purposes of this subsection, the term `employment-based visa' means an immigrant visa which is issued pursuant to the numerical limitation under section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)).
______________________________
-If they are saying "beginning with fiscal year 2001", is a legislation required for years after 2001? The act says nothing about that. If however no legislation is required why are Congressmen like Lantos even going about working for the Health Care Professionals?
-If they are automatically reducing for future years, does it mean that they are also automatically available for future years without legislative action?
Can Rajiv Khanna enlighten us on this one as I guess this has crossed all of the our minds who are in this predicament.
______________________________
(d) Recapture of Unused Employment-Based Immigrant Visas:
(1) In general: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the number of employment-based visas (as defined in paragraph (3)) made available for a fiscal year (beginning with fiscal year 2001) shall be increased by the number described in paragraph (2). Visas made available under this subsection shall only be available in a fiscal year to employment-based immigrants under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
(2) Number available:
(A) In general: Subject to subparagraph (B), the number described in this paragraph is the difference between the number of employment-based visas that were made available in fiscal year 1999 and 2000 and the number of such visas that were actually used in such fiscal years.
(B) Reduction: The number described in subparagraph (A) shall be reduced, for each fiscal year after fiscal year 2001, by the cumulative number of immigrant visas actually used under paragraph (1) for previous fiscal years.
(C) Construction: Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as affecting the application of section 201(c)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(c)(3)(C)).
(3) Employment-based visas defined: For purposes of this subsection, the term `employment-based visa' means an immigrant visa which is issued pursuant to the numerical limitation under section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)).
______________________________
-If they are saying "beginning with fiscal year 2001", is a legislation required for years after 2001? The act says nothing about that. If however no legislation is required why are Congressmen like Lantos even going about working for the Health Care Professionals?
-If they are automatically reducing for future years, does it mean that they are also automatically available for future years without legislative action?
Can Rajiv Khanna enlighten us on this one as I guess this has crossed all of the our minds who are in this predicament.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sada,
Hope you are right. Check these out
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d109:3:./temp/~bdqXE0::
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r109:2:./temp/~r109Dz0jeb::
"my legislation simply allows CIS to recapture unused work-based immigration quota numbers from countries that have undersubscribed their own allowable visa numbers." which indicates that a legislation is required - otherwise why go into the hassles of a new act?
And again "The HIPA Act is modeled directly on the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act, which Congress passed, and President Clinton signed into law nearly five years ago, in response to the shortage of highly skilled computer programmers and information technology workers needed to fuel the Internet boom of the late 1990's. Like the HIPA Act of 2005, that law allowed for the recapture of unused employment-based visas to fill a necessary labor shortage."
Interestingly, this has been referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims on 3/2/2005.
Sandeep
Hope you are right. Check these out
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d109:3:./temp/~bdqXE0::
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r109:2:./temp/~r109Dz0jeb::
"my legislation simply allows CIS to recapture unused work-based immigration quota numbers from countries that have undersubscribed their own allowable visa numbers." which indicates that a legislation is required - otherwise why go into the hassles of a new act?
And again "The HIPA Act is modeled directly on the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act, which Congress passed, and President Clinton signed into law nearly five years ago, in response to the shortage of highly skilled computer programmers and information technology workers needed to fuel the Internet boom of the late 1990's. Like the HIPA Act of 2005, that law allowed for the recapture of unused employment-based visas to fill a necessary labor shortage."
Interestingly, this has been referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims on 3/2/2005.
Sandeep