More bad news -
http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html
01/07/2005: Prospects for Labor Certification Backlog Removal in Two Years
The DOL is currently working under the backlog reduction plan which targets to remove the entire backlog cases in two years. The backlog cases are estimated to far exceed 300,000. However, one wonders how the goal can be achieved by the two Backlog Processing Centers without a substantial number of those cases being swifted to the other two National Processing Centers. Logistically, unless such swift takes place, the works between the two Backlog Processing Centers (300,000+) and the two National Processing Centers (new PERM applications) may also turn out to be imbalanced with the resultant inefficient and ineffective use and management of available adjudication resources.
It appears that such swift must be achieved in the form of conversion of existing cases to the PERM cases. However, because of the ill-timed launch of the PERM program and extremely high risk embedded in the conversion requirements under the PERM Final Rule, one cannot expect a massive swift of cases from the Backlog Processing Centers to National Processing Centers. Ironically, the DOL is launching the PERM program at a time when the EB-3 visa numbers starts retrogressing. The retrogression of visa numbers places less weight and importance on prompt approval of labor certification applications than preservation of priority dates. Additionally, the FIFO rule of processing of backlog cases induces the oldest filers to hesitate to consider conversion of the pipeline cases to the PERM cases. Accordingly, it is most likely that those who consider the conversion will turn out to be recent filers when it comes to Indians, Chinese, and Philippines nationals.
On top of the ill-timed launch of the PERM program, the dead traps embedded in the conversion in terms of priority dates will lead to hesitation of a large number of backlog cases to file a conversion. In hindsight, the DOL should have liberalized the conversion opportunity which would guarantee preservation of the priority dates. The Final Rule moved towards the other direction.
Under the circumstances, DOL may have to require the National Processing Centers to participate in the backlog reduction works for effective utilization of resources as well as for assistance with the Backlog Processing Centers to manage the reduction of backlogs within certain period of time. The DOL would have achieved the transition and reorganization more smoothly from the two-tier system to the single-tier system, had it planned the timing of the PERM launch program appropriately and provided liberal opportunities for conversion in the Final Rule. Conversion would have allowed the DOL to remove some of those cases from 45 to 60 days, accelerating removal of backlog cases. Participation of the National Processing Center resources in the backlog reduction will involve the same protracted processing procedures which will be governed by the current labor certification rules and may turn out to add just number of resources to the backlog reduction workforces. Considering the fact that "six" Regional Certifying Offices had failed to remove the backlogs and piled up over 300,000 cases, one wonders how participation of the part of workforces of the National Processing Centers in the Backlog Processing Centers' cases would remove the mountain of backlogs in two years. We will watch closely how the operation of reengineering will unfold during the next two years.
