April VB is around the corner...

B

belacut

Registered Users (C)
do you guys think CIS will retrogress again due to the new 180x days name check rule that use up a lot of Visa# lately?
 
No ... name checks haven't prevented them from using up the visa numbers. It only caused people NOT stuck in name check to get approved before those who were stuck ... it only affects who gets approved in a given month, not how many.

Also, those stuck in name check for a long time generally have very old PDs, so getting them approved and out of the way should help the PDs to move forward, not backward (unless so many are approved so as to make the category become 'U').
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jackolantern said:
No ... name checks haven't prevented them from using up the visa numbers. It only caused people NOT stuck in name check to get approved before those who were stuck ... it only affects who gets approved in a given month, not how many.

Also, those stuck in name check for a long time generally have very old PDs, so getting them approved and out of the way should help the PDs to move forward, not backward (unless so many are approved so as to make the category become 'U').
Click to expand...

Right on the money Jackolantern! As always.
 
Jackolantern said:
No ... name checks haven't prevented them from using up the visa numbers. It only caused people NOT stuck in name check to get approved before those who were stuck ... it only affects who gets approved in a given month, not how many.
Click to expand...

Given that unused visa is lost in a fiscal year, does this mean every year a visa number is allocated and lost for all those cases stuck in name check for years? Add to this, even if the visa numbers are Unavailable and name check clears, then their GC should be approved because they are getting allocated visa numbers every year. Is this true? Surely, mysterious.
 
FunLover2000 said:
Given that unused visa is lost in a fiscal year, does this mean every year a visa number is allocated and lost for all those cases stuck in name check for years?
Click to expand...
Under the old policy, they don't allocate a visa number until the name check is completed (except for the July fiasco in which all forms of madness happened). Those stuck in name check are simply ignored, and the visa numbers are allocated to other people.
 
Visa numbers are lost because USCIS doesn't approve enough applications. They have a huge backlog full of applications, but they are so busy sending non-sensical RFEs and inventing new rules that they only fill 70% of the quota during most years. It has nothing to do with NC.
 
Jackolantern said:
No ... name checks haven't prevented them from using up the visa numbers. It only caused people NOT stuck in name check to get approved before those who were stuck ... it only affects who gets approved in a given month, not how many.

Also, those stuck in name check for a long time generally have very old PDs, so getting them approved and out of the way should help the PDs to move forward, not backward (unless so many are approved so as to make the category become 'U').
Click to expand...

But its not a question of whether a visa number has been used or not that dictates the cut off date on the visa bulletin.
Isn't it the priority date of the first application that could not be reached?

In the past, if an application was not approvable because of pending NC, they set it aside and moved on to the next application in line there by potentially moving the priority date forward for the following month based on the "approvable" petitions.

With the new 180 day NC rule, if there are a lot of applications from before 01AUG01 for India EB3, then it is possible for that date to rertogress if the last application they process has a PD earlier than 01Aug01.
 
chitti007 said:
But its not a question of whether a visa number has been used or not that dictates the cut off date on the visa bulletin.
Isn't it the priority date of the first application that could not be reached?

In the past, if an application was not approvable because of pending NC, they set it aside and moved on to the next application in line there by potentially moving the priority date forward for the following month based on the "approvable" petitions.

With the new 180 day NC rule, if there are a lot of applications from before 01AUG01 for India EB3, then it is possible for that date to rertogress if the last application they process has a PD earlier than 01Aug01.
Click to expand...
OK now I get your point. When the name-check-stuck crowd gets added to the "approvable" list, they get counted against the calculation for the cutoff date, so they could make the dates retrogress until the bulk of those cases are approved and out of the way.
 
chitti007 said:
But its not a question of whether a visa number has been used or not that dictates the cut off date on the visa bulletin.
Isn't it the priority date of the first application that could not be reached?

In the past, if an application was not approvable because of pending NC, they set it aside and moved on to the next application in line there by potentially moving the priority date forward for the following month based on the "approvable" petitions.

With the new 180 day NC rule, if there are a lot of applications from before 01AUG01 for India EB3, then it is possible for that date to rertogress if the last application they process has a PD earlier than 01Aug01.
Click to expand...

i can't agree with you more. things will be getting worse first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top