jambalakadi1
Registered Users (C)
EB3 moved to 01-JAN-99
No change
No change
December 2005 Visa Bulletin Out
- Thread starter jambalakadi1
- Start date
dcmetro22042
Registered Users (C)
Dude, the date moved by a year! From 98 to 99.
needgchelp
Registered Users (C)
jambalakadi1 said:
link? I couldn't find on DOS website http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_1360.html current bulletin is of Nov'05
jambalakadi1
Registered Users (C)
EB china india mexico philippines
1st 01JUL01 01FEB03 C C
2nd 01FEB01 01JUL00 C C
3rd 101JAN01 01JAN99 01FEB01 15MAR01
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_2744.html
1st 01JUL01 01FEB03 C C
2nd 01FEB01 01JUL00 C C
3rd 101JAN01 01JAN99 01FEB01 15MAR01
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_2744.html
gc_daastaan
Registered Users (C)
EB2 moved to July 1, 2000
Eb2 also moved to July 1, 2000 for Indian nationals.
This is positive news. Hopefully it continues to move fast
PD: Jan 2003
I140-I485 : ND: Oct 5th.
Eb2 also moved to July 1, 2000 for Indian nationals.
This is positive news. Hopefully it continues to move fast
PD: Jan 2003
I140-I485 : ND: Oct 5th.
Dec Visa Bulletin another hoax
This is another hoax from USCIS. How exactly are they getting these dates?
How many cases did they approve and how did they move the date to 99?
Come on, I cannot understand people being happy about the date moving, whereas it shouldn't be retrogressed so much in the first place. I don't know what kind of scam these people[USCIS folks / DOS] need to be punished under. By all means this is false reporting and unless we take it to the next level there is not going to be any solutions.
Let us assume there are lots of cases pending for approval from 99, 2000, 2001. Some still being in LC process, what is the rule in moving the date forward? If their background check etc gets delayed, they may not get to the number of visas allotted for each country for that year. This then needs to be passed on a bill from Senate to recapture them back. And no one knows how long that will take. So realistically unless something happens with the bill that was discussed during last week there is no real hope of getting GC in a reasonable time of 3 or 4 years from the start.
Hopefully things get better next year. I think mailing ombudsman is a good idea to question why is the date retrogressed this far? What is the real number of cases pending for that many years? How are we going to overcome this?
This is another hoax from USCIS. How exactly are they getting these dates?
How many cases did they approve and how did they move the date to 99?
Come on, I cannot understand people being happy about the date moving, whereas it shouldn't be retrogressed so much in the first place. I don't know what kind of scam these people[USCIS folks / DOS] need to be punished under. By all means this is false reporting and unless we take it to the next level there is not going to be any solutions.
Let us assume there are lots of cases pending for approval from 99, 2000, 2001. Some still being in LC process, what is the rule in moving the date forward? If their background check etc gets delayed, they may not get to the number of visas allotted for each country for that year. This then needs to be passed on a bill from Senate to recapture them back. And no one knows how long that will take. So realistically unless something happens with the bill that was discussed during last week there is no real hope of getting GC in a reasonable time of 3 or 4 years from the start.
Hopefully things get better next year. I think mailing ombudsman is a good idea to question why is the date retrogressed this far? What is the real number of cases pending for that many years? How are we going to overcome this?
waitingdood
Registered Users (C)
The dates moved forward not just because lots of cases were approved or denied in the last two months or so. The cutoff dates are based on the estimate of the demand they receive. The retrogression that begun 10/1 probably stopped the influx of the pending applications and they just realized "oh actually we don't have as many applications as we thought we would get", so they move things forward. From what my attorney told me, there really aren't too many cases out there that have a priority date of 2001 or earlier (at least for EB1 and EB2 cases), so I would be surprised that the cutoff dates for these two categories would not continue to move forward. Just my two cents.
How do you know there were no cases approved from 98 is the last two months?sankar_ra said:
Do you expect that everyone who gets approved to post on this or any other forum? They probably cleared all cases from 98 before the dates moved to 99. However, if the date retrogresses back to 98 in future you have valid point.
gimme_green
Registered Users (C)
Sometimes its just the frustation of the people.
But yes, if USCIS estimates wrongly and have no work for a month because they were more cautious ... thats wrong ...
But if that was the case we would have seen the dates move forward last month. (or were they waiting still ?? )
USCIS handles cases based on filing date on the queue which had all eligible (ie non retrogressed) applications. So someone with a PD of 1997 gets processed after someone who filed after someone with a PD of 1999. So maybe this was a way to flush out all older PDs. So essentially giving a "priority" to the priority date. I think this is not that unfair.
It easy to blame and curse ppul who got substitute labors ... but again this is allowed by law .. so why not ?
As long as the USCIS is processing cases as fast as they can ... I think its ok ... but yes if all these retrogression is a part of a bigger plan to lower the number of green cards issued .. thats bad.
This is just my opinion.
But yes, if USCIS estimates wrongly and have no work for a month because they were more cautious ... thats wrong ...
But if that was the case we would have seen the dates move forward last month. (or were they waiting still ?? )
USCIS handles cases based on filing date on the queue which had all eligible (ie non retrogressed) applications. So someone with a PD of 1997 gets processed after someone who filed after someone with a PD of 1999. So maybe this was a way to flush out all older PDs. So essentially giving a "priority" to the priority date. I think this is not that unfair.
It easy to blame and curse ppul who got substitute labors ... but again this is allowed by law .. so why not ?
As long as the USCIS is processing cases as fast as they can ... I think its ok ... but yes if all these retrogression is a part of a bigger plan to lower the number of green cards issued .. thats bad.
This is just my opinion.
armie said:
SUPPORT reforms to remove EB VISA Retrogression:
U can send a FAX to ur senators and cong'men from www.isnamerica.org..
Please join that website and send faxes...
House BIll HR 4241 (which alleviates EB Retrogression) will be heard in house some time this week...lets send faxes guys...go on!!!
U can send a FAX to ur senators and cong'men from www.isnamerica.org..
Please join that website and send faxes...
House BIll HR 4241 (which alleviates EB Retrogression) will be heard in house some time this week...lets send faxes guys...go on!!!