Concurrent Filers (140/485) CSC-TSC: Waiting for 140 Approval
- Thread starter perm_faq
- Start date
jbxieperm2005
Registered Users (C)
This "concurrent" filing sounds encouraging. However, I think his case is under special circumstance. He filed I140/485 just a few day before mass transfer. He got 140 RD (what's the ND?) but no 485 RD. And his 485 was transferred to TX 4/1 while most of us on 3/23.
My guess: his 485 never got touched by CSC. Instead, it was forwarded to TSC directly. For some reason, TSC may not consider he has a concurrently filed 485. Like a few other semi-concurrently filed cases, they also got 140 approved.
after140, could you please tell us when your AP and EAD approved? Do you have a A number on your I-140 receipt (evidence of concurrent filing). And what's your 140/485 notice dates?
Thanks
My guess: his 485 never got touched by CSC. Instead, it was forwarded to TSC directly. For some reason, TSC may not consider he has a concurrently filed 485. Like a few other semi-concurrently filed cases, they also got 140 approved.
after140, could you please tell us when your AP and EAD approved? Do you have a A number on your I-140 receipt (evidence of concurrent filing). And what's your 140/485 notice dates?
Thanks
after140 said:
Here are my Case Details
My own Labor PD March 23 2003
Went to Backlog center Phl., Nothin on that yet..
Found one approved labor in my own company :
PD: Sep 28 2001 (Subsitute labor)
Filing date : Sep 28 2005 Concurrently @CSC
Transfered to TSC: March 22 2006 (I140)/ March 23 2006 (both 485)
I140:WAC060035XXXX
485: WAC060035XXXX
Wife
485:WAC060035XXXX
My own Labor PD March 23 2003
Went to Backlog center Phl., Nothin on that yet..
Found one approved labor in my own company
:PD: Sep 28 2001 (Subsitute labor)
Filing date : Sep 28 2005 Concurrently @CSC
Transfered to TSC
: March 22 2006 (I140)/ March 23 2006 (both 485) I140:WAC060035XXXX
485: WAC060035XXXX
Wife
485:WAC060035XXXX
Endeavour2003
Registered Users (C)
Shame on USCIS
Shame on USCIS
There is a concept in the civilized world called a "Queue" which the USCIS TSC does not seem to be even vaguely familiar with. A Queue allows requests to be serviced in am organized, systematic manner when there are are more requests than can be handled at a time. A Queue provides predictability and allows people who have been waiting the longest to be serviced first.
What the hell is wrong with USCIS? They are touching EB-2 , EB-3 cases from March 2006 left and right but totally ignoring cases from September 2005.
This delay is Unfair, Unjust and so very Avoidable had USCIS just given a thought to it. At least if there was an overall delay and they had maintained the Queue at least we would have known where we were. We could be stuck in this crap for 4 days, 4 weeks, 4 months………..
If USCIS decided to set it's house in order using bi-specialization it should have done so transparently without causing so much pain & suffering to it's Customers. BTW, the term Customer is the biggest joke I have heard in a long time...it should be more like 'prisoners'.
If a women would have conceived at the time of filing I-140 in September she could be expecting to deliver a child shortly. Yes, my friends that is the magnitude of the massive I-140 delay for the unfortunate I-140 CSC concurrent filers that we are talking about.
Shame on USCIS
There is a concept in the civilized world called a "Queue" which the USCIS TSC does not seem to be even vaguely familiar with. A Queue allows requests to be serviced in am organized, systematic manner when there are are more requests than can be handled at a time. A Queue provides predictability and allows people who have been waiting the longest to be serviced first.
What the hell is wrong with USCIS? They are touching EB-2 , EB-3 cases from March 2006 left and right but totally ignoring cases from September 2005.
This delay is Unfair, Unjust and so very Avoidable had USCIS just given a thought to it. At least if there was an overall delay and they had maintained the Queue at least we would have known where we were. We could be stuck in this crap for 4 days, 4 weeks, 4 months………..
If USCIS decided to set it's house in order using bi-specialization it should have done so transparently without causing so much pain & suffering to it's Customers. BTW, the term Customer is the biggest joke I have heard in a long time...it should be more like 'prisoners'.
If a women would have conceived at the time of filing I-140 in September she could be expecting to deliver a child shortly. Yes, my friends that is the magnitude of the massive I-140 delay for the unfortunate I-140 CSC concurrent filers that we are talking about.
TSC has treated Concurrent wrongly before,does this time delay related
TSC Wrongly Rejects Concurrent Filings
Posted Nov 04, 2005
©MurthyDotCom
According to information from the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), the Texas Service Center (TSC) has been improperly rejecting concurrent I-140/I-485 filings. The cases, apparently, were properly filed and had available priority dates as of the time of filing. Presumably, some of these may be cases that were filed in the pre-September 30, 2005 rush to file EB2 cases while the priority dates were current.
©MurthyDotCom
TSC has acknowledged this mistake and has directed that these erroneously rejected cases be resubmitted. These should be clearly marked as not to be opened in the mailroom, and addressed to the attention of John Pittman, ACD. Additionally, the date of filing in many of these cases is vital (since the priority dates have retrogressed and many of these filings would not be proper post-September 30, 2005). Proof of the original filing date, therefore, is important.
TSC Wrongly Rejects Concurrent Filings
Posted Nov 04, 2005
©MurthyDotCom
According to information from the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), the Texas Service Center (TSC) has been improperly rejecting concurrent I-140/I-485 filings. The cases, apparently, were properly filed and had available priority dates as of the time of filing. Presumably, some of these may be cases that were filed in the pre-September 30, 2005 rush to file EB2 cases while the priority dates were current.
©MurthyDotCom
TSC has acknowledged this mistake and has directed that these erroneously rejected cases be resubmitted. These should be clearly marked as not to be opened in the mailroom, and addressed to the attention of John Pittman, ACD. Additionally, the date of filing in many of these cases is vital (since the priority dates have retrogressed and many of these filings would not be proper post-September 30, 2005). Proof of the original filing date, therefore, is important.
Guys,
If you are complaining regarding the delayed in adjudication of the I-140 cases, then I am with you. By the way, you are barking at a wrong center. Major delays occurred at CSC and not TSC. It has only been a month since your petitions are transferred to TSC! In addition, I personally feel nonconcurrent filers should be given priority in terms of adjudication of their I-140 cases. This is because they the I-140 approval allows them to extend their H1B in three years renewal. On the other hand, concurrent filers can apply for EAD & AP, so they have more flexibility! Be considerate to other person as well. I am in favor of about three or four months time-lage between the approvals of concurrent filing with respect to the nonconcurrent I-140 filing, for the reason mentioned above. By the way, I am a concurrent filer.
If you are complaining regarding the delayed in adjudication of the I-140 cases, then I am with you. By the way, you are barking at a wrong center. Major delays occurred at CSC and not TSC. It has only been a month since your petitions are transferred to TSC! In addition, I personally feel nonconcurrent filers should be given priority in terms of adjudication of their I-140 cases. This is because they the I-140 approval allows them to extend their H1B in three years renewal. On the other hand, concurrent filers can apply for EAD & AP, so they have more flexibility! Be considerate to other person as well. I am in favor of about three or four months time-lage between the approvals of concurrent filing with respect to the nonconcurrent I-140 filing, for the reason mentioned above. By the way, I am a concurrent filer.
This is utter nonsense
whether you are concurrent or non-concurrent you would like to keep H1 status as long as possible,considering all the uncertainities of this immigration process.So if 140 is delayed just because you filed concurrently then the concurrent filers like me who is already crossed 6 years have to extend H1 on year to year basis.USCIS have no business to ignore ND.In this regard both CSC and TSC are guilty parties.Before they sent to TSC, CSC should have arranged the papers in order.Atlease TSC should have put the papers in queue on the basis of ND.It clearly shows the way government agencies work.2006gc said:
waitingislife
New Member
So, which path is for us?
Are our cases on the separate boxes which they are not trying to
touch for the time being, or our cases mixed without having any
order?
What can I do? Wait until the lucky hand touches my case, or give up
any luck until their policy toward concurrent CSC filing changes...
Are our cases on the separate boxes which they are not trying to
touch for the time being, or our cases mixed without having any
order?
What can I do? Wait until the lucky hand touches my case, or give up
any luck until their policy toward concurrent CSC filing changes...
First in first out is fair!
20006gc,
Irrespective of concurrent/non-concurrent its only fair that the people who filed first get their application processed first. THere's no question of consideration etc since there are many scenarios that could affect anyone that hasn't got 140...
Its ridiculous how this entire GC procedure has become a gamble!!!!!
2006gc said:
20006gc,
Irrespective of concurrent/non-concurrent its only fair that the people who filed first get their application processed first. THere's no question of consideration etc since there are many scenarios that could affect anyone that hasn't got 140...
Its ridiculous how this entire GC procedure has become a gamble!!!!!
I saw a case in a Chinese BBS site.
This guy got email approval on both I140 and I485 ( although the cut-off date for chinese-born is Jan 2004) with
RD: Sep 28 2005
NIW, transfered to TX on Mar 23 2006.
If you can read Chinese, this is the original post
http://mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Immigration&gid=5773307&ftype=0
This guy got email approval on both I140 and I485 ( although the cut-off date for chinese-born is Jan 2004) with
RD: Sep 28 2005
NIW, transfered to TX on Mar 23 2006.
If you can read Chinese, this is the original post
http://mitbbs.com/mitbbs_article_t.php?board=Immigration&gid=5773307&ftype=0