Philadelphia Backlog Elimination Center Tracking

GCTitan

GCTitan,

I am one of the people stuck at PBEC with 1 year extensions. I can't even convert to PERM as recruitment was completed in my case and the case forwarded to the Region. I am one of the people that you and USCISM claim to speak for.

You are missing the point. I am not saying that solving retrogression alone with solve the issue for us. I am saying that retrogression is one of the problems facing us. If retrogression is solved, we will still need to get out of PBEC.

As I said earlier, without the I485 being opened up, even if I got labor in a year I would have to wait 3/4 years for I485/EAD/AP while the Apr 2001 people clog up the queue for years.

I said in my earlier post that we need to work on retrogression and PBEC in parallel. Your and USCISM's contention is that working on retrogression will HARM us PBEC captives. I couldn't disagree more.

This is my last post on the matter, I can't make myself any clearer than this.


GCTitan said:
Stucklabor
We have no issues if someone if a new guy filing PERM gets lucky without impacting rest of us waiting in the PBEC Queue.Think about those who are stuck in PBEC and with 1 year extensions ,their employer unwilling to try PERM .Eliminating retrogression will alone not solve our issue. USCISMockery's views seem to reflect all those who are are dependent on BEC to clear their labor and not PERM.
 
stucklabor said:
Why is it harmful to us backloggees if someone who joined the system after us gets to file their I485 before us?

Current LC backlog is caused by inadequate resources -- basically, not enough people are working to process the flood of cases in a reasonable time.

Do you think I485-related resources are unlimited? ;)
 
Good News .... but is not over !!

Senate Defeats Attempt to Eliminate H-1B, Backlog Relief from Budget Reconciliation Bill (posted Nov. 3, 2005)"


As background, the Senate Judiciary Committee, as part of the budget reconciliation process, held a markup on October 20 of a proposal to provide temporary relief from the H-1B visa blackout and the employment-based immigrant visa backlogs in exchange for increased fees on some petitions. Although it was vehemently opposed by some Members of the Committee, the proposal ultimately passed out of Committee by a strong 14-2 vote. The final package would:

*Impose a new $500 fee on immigrant visa petitions for the EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 categories.

*Recapture unused employment-based visas from prior years for immediate allocation of up to 90,000/year.

*Exempt spouses and minor children from counting against the annual cap on employment-based immigrant visas.

*Allow individuals to apply for adjustment of status before an immigrant visa is deemed currently available. (Of course, approval could not occur until the visa number is available.)

*Recapture approximately 300,000 unused H-1B numbers dating back to FY 1991. As a result of an amendment by Senator Feinstein, 30,000 rather than 60,000 would be available annually. (In other words, effectively raising the cap from 65,000 to 95,000 for at least 10 years.)

*Impose a new fee on the recaptured H-1B visas so that the fees on the original 65,000 H-1B allotment remain unchanged but the additional 30,000 available annually carry an additional $500 fee.

*Impose a new $750 fee on L-1 visas. (This was part of Senator Feinstein's amendment and was necessary to offset the reduction in revenue resulting from the limitation on recaptured H-1B numbers from 60,000 to 30,000.)

During floor debate on the Senate’s overall reconciliation package (S. 1932), Senator Byrd offered an amendment to remove from the final package the H-1B and immigrant visa retrogression provisions passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee and replace them with a provision that mirrored the House’s version, which simply imposes a $1,500 fee increase on L visas. That amendment was rejected by an overwhelming vote of 85-14. (See how your Senators voted here). This is a tremendous victory for immigrants. The Senate ultimately approved the Budget Reconciliation Package by a vote of 52-47.

Unfortunately, the fight is not over. The Senate’s package still must be reconciled in conference with the House’s alternative budget reconciliation bill which, as noted above, imposes a $1,500 fee increase on L visas. Although we can congratulate ourselves on our success so far, it will require an equally big push to hold onto these gains and make sure the proposal survives the Senate-House conference. Client action is key to these efforts, so keep your clients engaged and activated! We will keep you updated on the conference timing and process as it comes into focus. In the meantime, we need to maintain the pressure on Congress and the momentum we have generated for meaningful relief.
 
Bill S.1932 was passed by Senate today

SEC. 8001. RECAPTURE OF UNUSED VISA NUMBERS.

(a) Recapture of Unused Employment-Based Immigrant Visas- Section 201(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(d)) is amended--

(1) in paragraph (2)(C)--

(A) by striking `is the difference' and inserting `is the sum of--

`(i) the difference'; and

(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting the following: `; and

`(ii) the lesser of--

`(I) the number of immigrant visas that were available in any previous fiscal year to employment-based immigrants (and their family members accompanying or following to join under section 203(d)) and that were not issued for that fiscal year or for any subsequent fiscal year, excluding those immigrant visas reserved for employment-based immigrants for an occupation listed in schedule A of section 656.5 of title 20, Code of Federal Regulations; and

`(II) 90,000.'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(3) Immigrant visas issued on or after October 1, 2004, to spouses and children of employment-based immigrants shall not be counted against the numerical limitation set forth in paragraph (1).'.

(b) Supplemental Petition Fee- Section 204(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)) is amended--

(1) in subparagraph (E), by adding at the end the following: `Such petition shall be accompanied by a supplemental petition fee in the amount of $500.'; and

(2) in subparagraph (F), by adding at the end the following: `Such petition shall be accompanied by a supplemental petition fee in the amount of $500.'.

(c) Adjustment of Status-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255(a)) is amended to read as follows:

`(a)(1) The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States or the status of any other alien having an approved petition for classification under subparagraph (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (B)(ii), or (B)(iii) of section 204(a)(1) may be adjusted by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General, in the discretion of the Secretary or Attorney General, and under such regulations as the Secretary or Attorney General may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if--

`(A) the alien makes an application for such adjustment;

`(B) the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence; and

`(C) an immigrant visa is immediately available to the alien at the time the application is filed.

`(2) If a supplemental petition fee is paid for any petition under subparagraph (E) or (F) of section 204(a)(1), an application under paragraph (1) of this subsection on behalf of an alien beneficiary of such petition (including a spouse or child who is accompanying or following to join the principal beneficiary) may be filed without regard to the limitation set forth in paragraph (1)(C). An application for adjustment of status filed under this paragraph may not be approved until such time as an immigrant visa becomes available.'.

(2) PENDING APPLICATIONS- An alien on whose behalf a petition was pending under subparagraph (E) or (F) of section 204(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)), on the date of enactment of this Act may, upon the payment of the supplemental petition fee set forth in such section, apply for adjustment of status under this subsection without regard to the limitation set forth in section 245(a)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255(a)(1)(C)), as amended by paragraph (1).

(d) Recapture of Unused H-1B Visa Numbers- Section 214(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)) is amended--

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (9) through (11) as paragraphs (10) through (12), respectively; and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:

`(9)(A) If the numerical limitation in paragraph (1)(A) for fiscal year 2006 or a subsequent fiscal year has been reached, such numerical limitation shall be supplemented in a number equal to the lesser of--

`(i) the cumulative total number of visas that were available in all prior fiscal years subsequent to fiscal year 1991, and not issued for each such fiscal year or any subsequent fiscal year; and

`(ii) 30,000.

`(B) Any petition filed after the numerical limitation set forth in paragraph (1)(A) has been reached for that fiscal year, and seeking an H-1B visa number recaptured under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, shall be accompanied by an H-1B recapture fee in the amount of $500.'.

(e) Conforming Amendment- Section 286(m) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(m)) is amended by inserting `, including those fees provided for in subparagraphs (E) and (F) of section 204(a)(1) and subsections (c)(15) and (g)(9)(B) of section 214,' after `all adjudication fees'.

(f) Expenditure Limitation- Amounts collected under subparagraphs (E) and (F) of section 204(a)(1) and subsections (c)(15) and (g)(9)(B) of section 214 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended by this Act, may not be expended unless specifically appropriated by an Act of Congress.

SEC. 8002. FEES WITH RESPECT TO IMMIGRATION SERVICES FOR INTRACOMPANY TRANSFEREES.

Section 214(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(15)(A) The Secretary of State shall impose a fee on an employer when an alien files an application abroad for a visa authorizing initial admission to the United States as a nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(L) in order to be employed by the employer, if the alien is covered under a blanket petition described in paragraph (2)(A).

`(B) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a fee on an employer filing a petition under paragraph (1) initially to grant an alien nonimmigrant status described in section 101(a)(15)(L) or to extend for the first time the stay of an alien having such status.

`(C) The amount of the fee imposed under subparagraph (A) or (B) shall be $750.

`(D) The fees imposed under subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall only apply to principal aliens and not to spouses or children who are accompanying or following to join such principal aliens.

`(E)(i) An employer may not require an alien who is the beneficiary of the visa or petition for which a fee is imposed under this paragraph to reimburse, or otherwise compensate, the employer for part or all of the cost of such fee.

`(ii) Section 274A(g)(2) shall apply to a violation of clause (i) in the same manner as it applies to a violation of section 274A(g)(1).'.
Calendar No. 274

SOURCE:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.1932:
 
Xipe Totec: More than the "not enuf people working" effect, I feel it is more the effect of "people not working enuf". In any case, the intent of my email is on the wonderment that there is another soul besides me in this PBEC hell-hole who thought of a pseudonym from Mesoamerica.

-Tikal

Xipe Totec said:
Current LC backlog is caused by inadequate resources -- basically, not enough people are working to process the flood of cases in a reasonable time.

Do you think I485-related resources are unlimited? ;)
 
Thanks!! mvinays...Good Luck to you also.

Thanks!! Good Luck to you also.

mvinays said:
Congratulations!!! Best of luck for 140/485. Nice to see a Philly BEC approval after a loooooooooooong time!!! :)
 
srawal said:
After 4 years got my Labor approved. Here are the details. Good Luck to all. Atleast they are working ..but sssssssllllllllloooooooooowwwwwwwwww.

Maryland, EB3-RIR
PD=January 7,2002
RD= April 5, 2004
BPC - Phil - 45 day notice March 2005
BPC -Phil - 45 day reply March 2005
New Case# New Case # : P-04274-xxxxx

Approval Notice Recieved on November 3rd

Congratulations !! I hope it is not result of same randomness going on for a while in PBEC.
 
Update from lawyer

Talked to my lawyer's paralegal and she said that out of some 150 cases filed from MD and Va they have seen less than 10 approvals, mostly from 2001 and 1 or 2 from 2003 from Va.
Its good to hear that we might get some retrogression relief through the Senate bill. Atleast, now we won't see ourselves arguing on whether we should discuss retrogression on this forum for some time ,atleast. Like I said before, for people with early priority dates it matters and we think its relevant otherwise there won't be so many people talking about it. If someone thinks its not relevant thats their choice. Why waste time arguing about it? If I think shooting letters and faxes to Elaine Chao or someone is a waste of time that is just my view. I don't start asking them to stop posting about PBEC awareness efforts. If someone really wants the luxury of being a control freak all they have to do is open a private forum and allow limited access to people who would follow their commands.
 
yours_sincerely said:
Talked to my lawyer's paralegal and she said that out of some 150 cases filed from MD and Va they have seen less than 10 approvals, mostly from 2001 and 1 or 2 from 2003 from Va.
Its good to hear that we might get some retrogression relief through the Senate bill. Atleast, now we won't see ourselves arguing on whether we should discuss retrogression on this forum for some time ,atleast. Like I said before, for people with early priority dates it matters and we think its relevant otherwise there won't be so many people talking about it. If someone thinks its not relevant thats their choice. Why waste time arguing about it? If I think shooting letters and faxes to Elaine Chao or someone is a waste of time that is just my view. I don't start asking them to stop posting about PBEC awareness efforts. If someone really wants the luxury of being a control freak all they have to do is open a private forum and allow limited access to people who would follow their commands.

Apparently, statistics is very discouraging. Yea, I second that, atleast we don't have to weed through posts to find some PBEC related post.

But I have to contradict rest of your post.

Problem here is we barely can gather people to support for PBEC awareness, and there comes 3-4 guys flooding the thread with relevant but inappropriate (for this thread) issues. I guess, you are not much exposed to "forums".
On most of such places, there is "moderator" (and not "control freak") and they try to keep posters on topic.

Just go on Edmunds forums and try to post about "Accord problems" in "Accord buying experience" forum, your post will be eliminated even before you get a chance to review it. Even though both topics are related, both has its own place.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Defeating Byrd's amendment was very important and we should get s.1932 passed in the house also. But at the same time we need to use the same strategy for DOL also. I was in touch with competeamerica for last one week to defeat Byrd's amendment. I am asking for their support in our fight against DOL.
We need to keep exposing the inefficiencies of DOL to the senators and the other congressmen.
 
Keep it UP

All efforts are appreciable. Weather it's against retrogressions or BEC inefficiencies. I like both. Keep it up.

gcby2020 said:
Defeating Byrd's amendment was very important and we should get s.1932 passed in the house also. But at the same time we need to use the same strategy for DOL also. I was in touch with competeamerica for last one week to defeat Byrd's amendment. I am asking for their support in our fight against DOL.
We need to keep exposing the inefficiencies of DOL to the senators and the other congressmen.
 
Did she tell you how many cases got response? and why PBEC is so slow?

yours_sincerely said:
Talked to my lawyer's paralegal and she said that out of some 150 cases filed from MD and Va they have seen less than 10 approvals, mostly from 2001 and 1 or 2 from 2003 from Va.
Its good to hear that we might get some retrogression relief through the Senate bill. Atleast, now we won't see ourselves arguing on whether we should discuss retrogression on this forum for some time ,atleast. Like I said before, for people with early priority dates it matters and we think its relevant otherwise there won't be so many people talking about it. If someone thinks its not relevant thats their choice. Why waste time arguing about it? If I think shooting letters and faxes to Elaine Chao or someone is a waste of time that is just my view. I don't start asking them to stop posting about PBEC awareness efforts. If someone really wants the luxury of being a control freak all they have to do is open a private forum and allow limited access to people who would follow their commands.
 
For USCIS

Buddy,
All I am trying to say is that we differ in seeing what is relevant to the forum. Technically, this forum is just for BEC tracking only...and by tracking I mean tracking only.
Your guess about my exposure to "forums" is not quite true but like you said you were just guessing. I trade regularly in stocks, options and forex and all these things have a lot of forums. Traders of EUR/USD currency pair do not hesitate to post news about USD/CAD or EUR/JPY trades on a EUR/USD discussion forum if they think fellow traders can benefit out of that and noone minds. Newbie traders always ask senior traders for general trading techniques and the senior guys oblige them. So, keep an open mind about how forums work. I am not going to comment on your exposure to forums as I hardly know you or anything about your background.
You have to acknowledge the fact that there are people who think retrogression is relevant to people in this forum. You may not agree with it but they have as much of a right to express their thoughts if they think it is relevant to this forum. If you create a forum that says something like "PBEC Backlog Reduction Awareness Only" and if you can manage to get guys who won't speak on anything else then noone is stopping you from doing that. None of these comments is to take away from you your efforts and enthusiasm in raising PBEC backlog reduction awareness. We have common causes to fight but we see the same issues in different ways. Lets respect other people's views/convictions even if we don't agree. I am never going to post any objections on any of your postings about what you think is relevant to the forum as long as you don't try to dictate this forum.
Good to see that you stay up as late as I do :)

USCISisMockery said:
Apparently, statistics is very discouraging. Yea, I second that, atleast we don't have to weed through posts to find some PBEC related post.

But I have to contradict rest of your post.

Problem here is we barely can gather people to support for PBEC awareness, and there comes 3-4 guys flooding the thread with relevant but inappropriate (for this thread) issues. I guess, you are not much exposed to "forums".
On most of such places, there is "moderator" (and not "control freak") and they try to keep posters on topic.

Just go on Edmunds forums and try to post about "Accord problems" in "Accord buying experience" forum, your post will be eliminated even before you get a chance to review it. Even though both topics are related, both has its own place.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For Kahada

Like I said, less than 10 got approved. I didn't ask about how many 45 day letters they had received if thats what you mean by response. I only asked her if she had any idea about how much time it might take for my case and she said she had no idea about what dates PBEC was processing.
Kahada said:
Did she tell you how many cases got response? and why PBEC is so slow?
 
Philadelphia 45 Days Letter

Is there any why to track (Online or Phone or e-mail) that if they have send a 45 days letter or not?

PD June 2004
RIR VA
45 Days letter- Not received

Thanks

Parth
 
I do not think it is a waste of time!

I am sure you'd agree that because of the RETROGRESSION, you'll have to wait to file for 485 even if your labor is cleared, and this wait could be in terms of years...Worrying about backlog at PBEC is right and should not stop working towards it if somebody IS working.
But we can not expect that retrogreesion relief bills will keep coming and sure the ONE will come at a point of time exactly when "one's" labor is cleared to take the benefit of it immediately.
I think we are here for one and for all. Just because the bill does not benefit all of us immediately, does not mean it is of no use. The fact that if retrogression relief is in effect when labor is cleared, at least the 485 wait will not be there speaks itself for its importance.
Again, I can not emphasize enough that the PBEC backlog HAS to be cleared SOON, but that does not invalidate any other action, in that any other action will be valid only after the labor is cleared.
Again, I am expressing my views only and not dictating anybody to behave certain way within the forums.

noluck2005 said:
Don't waste your time on bills, senate and other similar things retrogression will be solved by itself sooner than you think.
I would more worry about PBEC because without labor you can't do anything.
This is the same thing as you are upset because new 2007 Mercedes 600s is not out there yet and you want to buy it and all you have is 50$ in bank. account :D
 
Just Now sent a email to Leticia Sierra

To

Leticia Sierra, Acting Chief,

Division of Foreign Labor Certification,

Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

200 Constitution Avenue NW.,

Room C4312, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-3010
Fax: 202 693-2768
Email: sierra.leticia@dol.gov




Dear Leticia Sierra:


I am a computer professional working in US on H1 Visa for last 6 years in same profession. As you know, my spouse on H4 dependent visa can not work – she has master’s degree with great enthusiasm to work.

Labor certification delay makes me suffer a lot.

Of the two BEC’s the Philadelphia Backlog Elimination Center (PBEC) is processing very slow. While the Dallas BEC is proceeding with regular approvals and with approvals as far as application date of Sep-2003(Regional RIR Cases), Philadelphia BEC has not even finished partial data entry for more than half of the applications and have been randomly approving some applications with absolutely NO regard to FIFO (first-in-first-out), which the DOL had promised during the inception of the BEC’s.


Philidelphia Backlog Elimination center for GC labor processing is killing our day to day life. We are not able to take major decisions like buying home, establish business for spouse or investing in economy in stocks etc.

As a legal, tax-paying and productive member of society, my career and my spouses working status is stalled by this seemingly never ending unfair wait in the American legal immigration system and is very discouraging and possibly detrimental to the interest of the American global economy in the 21st century.

I request you to look at us and the whole community like us who are highly skilled, peace loving and helping US economy to grow.

Can you please take necessary steps to speed up the process at Philadelphia BEC like what Dallas BEC is doing now?


Thanks and Have a nice day.


Sincerely,



My Name
My Address
My Phone Number
----------------------------------------------------------

Come on guys , we need every one's support here to send letters and faxes to senators so they will wake up the sleeping Phili BEC people.

Every ones support is really needed.

Good luck.
 
I too did this.

I too sent this email to Leticia Sierra.

PCChandra said:
To

Leticia Sierra, Acting Chief,

Division of Foreign Labor Certification,

Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

200 Constitution Avenue NW.,

Room C4312, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-3010
Fax: 202 693-2768
Email: sierra.leticia@dol.gov
 
Top