Got this from our HR. Just want to share with everyone.
The BEC Manager confirmed that applications are being processed in ‘first-in-first-out (FIFO) order. The Manager acknowledged that some inconsistencies in FIFO have occurred and explained factors contributing to this. Original shipping of cases from the state agencies was inconsistent. For example, cases received from state agencies were put into the BEC queue for processing and then additional shipments of cases with earlier priority dates were received later. This caused some processing that was out of order in terms of priority dates. In addition, before 6/30/06, not all cases were data entered into the BEC system and the BECs could only work on cases that were actually in their system, meaning they were pulling applications for adjudication when not all cases had actually been data entered. This also caused some case handling that was out of order in terms of priority dates.
The BEC manager doesn’t know what he is talking about. He is basing his opinion on what needs to be said in a political way, which is totally incorrect and holds zero percent truth to his lazy statement. There should be no factor that constitutes the wrong doing in implementing FIFO. Has it been ever thought of how the packages need to be opened in a queue or they started processing the cases once it all been entered in their system, it should not have been an issue at all. Where is the great planning of processing cases given the fact that there are above 350000 cases in stack? Think about this if they can give your status of tax return in a week processing more than 200 million people query, why can’t just 350000 people are still sitting back wondering just to know the status of their cases – given the fact that they have established the two centers for more than 2 years now.
BEC Manager stated that now, with 95% of all cases data entered as of 6/30/06, applications are pulled up for adjudication in date order. The BEC Manager explained that an automated system pulls up each case, and that BEC Analysts are unable to override or change the system to pull cases out of order.
Just given the scenario as few people still didn’t receive their so called 45 days letter, I still doubt that 95% of the data entry has been completed. In my case, they entered the partial data, why it can be entered in full? What other requirements they need? Why they are still sitting doing nothing after I sent multiple inquires about my case which should invoke their place to go and drill what is missing or how it can be accomplished? Few other people having later PD than mine are able to receive 45-days letter. It was from the same agency, same SWA, why one can receive a letter and why I can’t?
BEC Manager made an important point about FIFO processing stating that while cases are being pulled up for adjudication in date order, they are not always completed in date order. Analysts working on several cases at a time may have an application that requires more time to complete adjudication, thus the actual approval dates of cases may not be in order. The agency will not hold case approvals to ensure approvals are issued in FIFO order, rather they will focus on ensuring cases are initially pulled up for adjudication on FIFO basis. Cases are being pulled up for adjudication from both the TR and RIR queues.
--Their system is a complete failure in establishing their promise of maneuvering cases to flow in Traditional and Non-Traditional queue.
--Their system is total disaster in order to just handle less than half million cases, and still making speculation that 95% of the cases been in their Center Receipt Notification Letter (CRNL) data.
--Their total disaster in handling the cases that already received full review from the SWA, once the labor is remanded, why are they still adjudicating the cases without going thru recruitment step again? Once the region sends it back to state, state is required to have the employer to file under Traditioanl queue. Why their own interpretation of approving labor is now being amended, seeing the provision it seems like they are not reluctant to follow their own policy.
