- Home
- Forums
- Master Archive of Old and Closed Forums
- Older Forums - THESE HAVE BEEN ARCHIVED AS OF Sept
- Backlog Elimination Centers
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Philadelphia Backlog Elimination Center Tracking
- Thread starter gp111
- Start date
to a_to_z_gc
a_to_z_gc
The item 4 you are refering was sent by PBEC yahoo group and that was the one forwarded by Stephen Stefanko.
a_to_z_gc - I am trying to send you some information that Mr Rajiv provided by email so that we can coordianate our efforts. I have sent several private messages few days ago with the details. Pls verify and respond.
a_to_z_gc
The item 4 you are refering was sent by PBEC yahoo group and that was the one forwarded by Stephen Stefanko.
a_to_z_gc - I am trying to send you some information that Mr Rajiv provided by email so that we can coordianate our efforts. I have sent several private messages few days ago with the details. Pls verify and respond.
a_to_z_gc said:Guys,
Just finished the telecon with Rajiv Khanna's attorney and here is the outline:
1) They feel that Federal District court, DC has already voted in favor of DOL, which means District Courts would be even more averse to any litigation at this point. And even if we approach Federal Court, there answer would be to look at the recent decision they took.
2) The clause which was to be used in litigation-"Unreasonable delay" under section 28USC1361 has already been used in the recent judgement, which makes future litigation(atleast in nearby future) very difficult to win against DOL.
3) They feel lobbying can be of great help at this stage and if anyone can get hold of one good Senator/ Congressman, who can vouch for the case, it can make us heard in Congress.
4) Their office did send a petition to Stephen Stefanko and he replied stating that he has forwarded it to DOL office in DC.
Solutions suggested:
Rajiv Khanna's office can petition on behalf of all of us formally to PBEC. This will cost us some money and our names will appear individually on this Petition.They are going to email me the cost structure by Tue/Wed.Once I have the info, I shall pass it on.
Basically, this is what was discussed today. They persisted on meeting Senator/Congressmen personally (if feasible), than letters/faxes.
Thanks.
DOL is exploring for the past 6 months or so
From the FAQ released on 05/02/2005 by DOL. Page 9.
http://atlas.doleta.gov/foreign/pdf/backlog_faqs_5-2-05.pdf
Question: In order for attorneys to be able to make a decision as to withdrawing a current case and refiling it as PERM, it is necessary to know (approximately) what the backlog is (or the priority date ) of cases that are being handled at the BPC. Will something like this be made available?
Answer: We are currently exploring how we can inform the public of estimated processing time at a BPC
From the FAQ released on 05/02/2005 by DOL. Page 9.
http://atlas.doleta.gov/foreign/pdf/backlog_faqs_5-2-05.pdf
Question: In order for attorneys to be able to make a decision as to withdrawing a current case and refiling it as PERM, it is necessary to know (approximately) what the backlog is (or the priority date ) of cases that are being handled at the BPC. Will something like this be made available?
Answer: We are currently exploring how we can inform the public of estimated processing time at a BPC
Replied to your messages, please check...
raj04 said:a_to_z_gc
The item 4 you are refering was sent by PBEC yahoo group and that was the one forwarded by Stephen Stefanko.
a_to_z_gc - I am trying to send you some information that Mr Rajiv provided by email so that we can coordianate our efforts. I have sent several private messages few days ago with the details. Pls verify and respond.
I am screwed! Should I file Perm EB3 now that...
I am from Singapore and filed for RIR EB2 in November 2004. I started preparing for perm filing in July and now I am ready to file EB3 perm. My attorney in July told me to file perm EB3 because he thought that EB3 will not retrogress for other countries(I can file for 485 immediatel after perm), and he thought perm EB3 is easier to pass than perm EB2. Now what do I do?
If I file perm EB3 now, since it has been retrogressed to 2001, I might have to wait for 4 years before I can file 485.
If I do not file perm EB3 now and wait for my RIR EB2 to clear Philly BEC, because EB2 has not retrogressed for other countries, it will be very fast once my RIR is cleared. But who the hell knows how long it will take for my RIR to get out of BEC???
Either way, I think I am screwed. I should have done perm EB2. But given the situation, what should I do? Should I go ahead with perm EB3 filing? Thanks for your advice!!!!
I prepared to file for perm EB3 because my attorney(how incompetent! ) in July told me to file perm EB3 because he thought that EB3 will not retrogress for other countries(I am from Singapore). If it does not retrogress, it is similar to EB2 in time needed, and he thought perm EB3 is easier to pass than perm EB2 in my case, due to my low salary (much lower than EB2 PWD). Now I am stuck with either filing a perm EB3 now or wait for my RIR EB2 (PD: 11/2004). What should I do? I am all done preparing perm EB3! Should I still go ahead and file perm EB3 and get a labor cert in hand first?
I am from Singapore and filed for RIR EB2 in November 2004. I started preparing for perm filing in July and now I am ready to file EB3 perm. My attorney in July told me to file perm EB3 because he thought that EB3 will not retrogress for other countries(I can file for 485 immediatel after perm), and he thought perm EB3 is easier to pass than perm EB2. Now what do I do?
If I file perm EB3 now, since it has been retrogressed to 2001, I might have to wait for 4 years before I can file 485.
If I do not file perm EB3 now and wait for my RIR EB2 to clear Philly BEC, because EB2 has not retrogressed for other countries, it will be very fast once my RIR is cleared. But who the hell knows how long it will take for my RIR to get out of BEC???
Either way, I think I am screwed. I should have done perm EB2. But given the situation, what should I do? Should I go ahead with perm EB3 filing? Thanks for your advice!!!!
I prepared to file for perm EB3 because my attorney(how incompetent! ) in July told me to file perm EB3 because he thought that EB3 will not retrogress for other countries(I am from Singapore). If it does not retrogress, it is similar to EB2 in time needed, and he thought perm EB3 is easier to pass than perm EB2 in my case, due to my low salary (much lower than EB2 PWD). Now I am stuck with either filing a perm EB3 now or wait for my RIR EB2 (PD: 11/2004). What should I do? I am all done preparing perm EB3! Should I still go ahead and file perm EB3 and get a labor cert in hand first?
WhyThisDelay
Registered Users (C)
File PERM EB2, before that too retrogresses for other countries.
rosatiamo said:I am from Singapore and filed for RIR EB2 in November 2004. I started preparing for perm filing in July and now I am ready to file EB3 perm. My attorney in July told me to file perm EB3 because he thought that EB3 will not retrogress for other countries(I can file for 485 immediatel after perm), and he thought perm EB3 is easier to pass than perm EB2. Now what do I do?
If I file perm EB3 now, since it has been retrogressed to 2001, I might have to wait for 4 years before I can file 485.
If I do not file perm EB3 now and wait for my RIR EB2 to clear Philly BEC, because EB2 has not retrogressed for other countries, it will be very fast once my RIR is cleared. But who the hell knows how long it will take for my RIR to get out of BEC???
Either way, I think I am screwed. I should have done perm EB2. But given the situation, what should I do? Should I go ahead with perm EB3 filing? Thanks for your advice!!!!
I prepared to file for perm EB3 because my attorney(how incompetent! ) in July told me to file perm EB3 because he thought that EB3 will not retrogress for other countries(I am from Singapore). If it does not retrogress, it is similar to EB2 in time needed, and he thought perm EB3 is easier to pass than perm EB2 in my case, due to my low salary (much lower than EB2 PWD). Now I am stuck with either filing a perm EB3 now or wait for my RIR EB2 (PD: 11/2004). What should I do? I am all done preparing perm EB3! Should I still go ahead and file perm EB3 and get a labor cert in hand first?
javaconsultant
Registered Users (C)
Thanks for the reply.
I agree with you that backlog center is gonna acknowledge faster if we send our request thru a lawyer, but what impact will the petition have on our cases ?
Will it expedite our cases ? Because given the inefficiency,I do not think much will be accmplished by the petition..........
There are hundred of thousand of cases pending and if few hundred cases send a petition , it won't have much of a impact....
Instead we should try for litigation. Litigation to get periodic updates from PBEC and that should be a good start....
Again I am NOT discouraging you guys...just stating my thoughts .....
We should brainstorm this thing and choose best possible way out.
I agree with you that backlog center is gonna acknowledge faster if we send our request thru a lawyer, but what impact will the petition have on our cases ?
Will it expedite our cases ? Because given the inefficiency,I do not think much will be accmplished by the petition..........
There are hundred of thousand of cases pending and if few hundred cases send a petition , it won't have much of a impact....
Instead we should try for litigation. Litigation to get periodic updates from PBEC and that should be a good start....
Again I am NOT discouraging you guys...just stating my thoughts .....
We should brainstorm this thing and choose best possible way out.
a_to_z_gc said:Looks like Stephen Stefanko replied to Rajiv Khanna immediately after Rajiv's attorney sent a petition. Looks like DOL know Rajiv Khanna's immigration abilities and they respect him. They also withdrew their stance on multiple LC stance when they sent a notice to Elaine Chow.
So the purpose of this petition would be to send it through his office in a much formal way asking them to expedite the cases.
Shall keep the forum updated on what cost structure they want.
Thanks.
I also felt the same that we should go for a litigation for PBEC to expedite the adjudication process. But when I spoke with Rajiv Khanna's attorney, who had discussed this scenario with Rajiv Khanna, he mentioned some really technical legal terms for which he mentioned that the recent Fed Court decision in favor of PBEC, would make any immediate litigation efforts futile.
But I agree that if we can bring out some concrete "injury" examples to make any planned litigation meaningful.Basically, if you see the court's findings, it clearly states that the "injury" to the petitioners was not sever enough for the court to tell DOL how to prioritize it's work. This is the most crucial portion of any legal case to prove that the defendant is wrong in it's stance. I discussed this with my professor of Law at my business school where I am doing my part time MBA and he mentioned the same thing- You should be able to stand in front of the judge and mention what injury was caused to you for not getting your LC approved. And you have to be prepared to answer the counter arguments by the defense lawyer like- You can still work by extending the H-1B, till you get your GC etc to counter delays.
So, I feel that we should comeup with some examples which can prove "injury" to us for our delayed LC adjudication. Example , I feel, could be the people on this who lost their jobs, waiting for their LC to get approved, where, they could have moved to another job had they moved to further stages of GC process. We have to comeup with similar examples,I feel.
I know that raj_04 is planning a telecon with Rajiv again coming Tuesday. Maybe, he/others can seek his opinion on this aspect.
One other thought - We are relying too heavily on just one immigration lawyer.MAybe we should get a second opinion from some other lawyer, who might comeup with better plan for a legal action, if possible.
Also if anyone of us can meet a Senator /Congressman personally to explain the situation and get him/her to make noise in Senate, that can really put some light on this situation.
Just my thoughts...
Thanks...
But I agree that if we can bring out some concrete "injury" examples to make any planned litigation meaningful.Basically, if you see the court's findings, it clearly states that the "injury" to the petitioners was not sever enough for the court to tell DOL how to prioritize it's work. This is the most crucial portion of any legal case to prove that the defendant is wrong in it's stance. I discussed this with my professor of Law at my business school where I am doing my part time MBA and he mentioned the same thing- You should be able to stand in front of the judge and mention what injury was caused to you for not getting your LC approved. And you have to be prepared to answer the counter arguments by the defense lawyer like- You can still work by extending the H-1B, till you get your GC etc to counter delays.
So, I feel that we should comeup with some examples which can prove "injury" to us for our delayed LC adjudication. Example , I feel, could be the people on this who lost their jobs, waiting for their LC to get approved, where, they could have moved to another job had they moved to further stages of GC process. We have to comeup with similar examples,I feel.
I know that raj_04 is planning a telecon with Rajiv again coming Tuesday. Maybe, he/others can seek his opinion on this aspect.
One other thought - We are relying too heavily on just one immigration lawyer.MAybe we should get a second opinion from some other lawyer, who might comeup with better plan for a legal action, if possible.
Also if anyone of us can meet a Senator /Congressman personally to explain the situation and get him/her to make noise in Senate, that can really put some light on this situation.
Just my thoughts...
Thanks...
javaconsultant said:Thanks for the reply.
I agree with you that backlog center is gonna acknowledge faster if we send our request thru a lawyer, but what impact will the petition have on our cases ?
Will it expedite our cases ? Because given the inefficiency,I do not think much will be accmplished by the petition..........
There are hundred of thousand of cases pending and if few hundred cases send a petition , it won't have much of a impact....
Instead we should try for litigation. Litigation to get periodic updates from PBEC and that should be a good start....
Again I am NOT discouraging you guys...just stating my thoughts .....
We should brainstorm this thing and choose best possible way out.
greatgc:Send email to H1B7YR@PHI.DFLC.US, requesting proof , that your case is pending at PBEC to apply H1 extention.
Last edited by a moderator:
Main "injury" - a spouse can not work. Just try to estimate the frustration because of sitting home for 6-7 years!!!
Another example - impossibility to file a homestead exemption. Minus $500 each year plus no 3% annual cap on the raising property taxes.
Another example - impossibility to file a homestead exemption. Minus $500 each year plus no 3% annual cap on the raising property taxes.
a_to_z_gc said:I also felt the same that we should go for a litigation for PBEC to expedite the adjudication process. But when I spoke with Rajiv Khanna's attorney, who had discussed this scenario with Rajiv Khanna, he mentioned some really technical legal terms for which he mentioned that the recent Fed Court decision in favor of PBEC, would make any immediate litigation efforts futile.
But I agree that if we can bring out some concrete "injury" examples to make any planned litigation meaningful.Basically, if you see the court's findings, it clearly states that the "injury" to the petitioners was not sever enough for the court to tell DOL how to prioritize it's work. This is the most crucial portion of any legal case to prove that the defendant is wrong in it's stance. I discussed this with my professor of Law at my business school where I am doing my part time MBA and he mentioned the same thing- You should be able to stand in front of the judge and mention what injury was caused to you for not getting your LC approved. And you have to be prepared to answer the counter arguments by the defense lawyer like- You can still work by extending the H-1B, till you get your GC etc to counter delays.
So, I feel that we should comeup with some examples which can prove "injury" to us for our delayed LC adjudication. Example , I feel, could be the people on this who lost their jobs, waiting for their LC to get approved, where, they could have moved to another job had they moved to further stages of GC process. We have to comeup with similar examples,I feel.
I know that raj_04 is planning a telecon with Rajiv again coming Tuesday. Maybe, he/others can seek his opinion on this aspect.
One other thought - We are relying too heavily on just one immigration lawyer.MAybe we should get a second opinion from some other lawyer, who might comeup with better plan for a legal action, if possible.
Also if anyone of us can meet a Senator /Congressman personally to explain the situation and get him/her to make noise in Senate, that can really put some light on this situation.
Just my thoughts...
Thanks...
July_2003 said:Main "injury" - a spouse can not work. Just try to estimate the frustration because of sitting home for 6-7 years!!!
Another example - impossibility to file a homestead exemption. Minus $500 each year plus no 3% annual cap on the raising property taxes.
There is no opportunity to get some loans without green card, kind of educational loans. I knew one guy who got pilot license and was very fustrated because he could not rent airplane without green card and banks did not give him loan to buy his own.
sfmars said:There is no opportunity to get some loans without green card, kind of educational loans. I knew one guy who got pilot license and was very fustrated because he could not rent airplane without green card and banks did not give him loan to buy his own.
Look, basically, these "injuries" have certainly been tried before.. and failed.. DOL can say they are are trying their best and the courts will agree..
Frankly, this is a dead end and you are wasting your time and money.. as a-z admitted, even the lawyers like Rajiv acknowledge this..
I'll contribute only if I see a sensible proposition like suing for getting periodic data disclosed from DOL.. if this is about wild-eyed litigation schemes, count me out... I might as well spend my money on PowerBall tickets for all the chances we have of winning lawsuits based on "injury".
Can we get focussed on something concrete and winnable please?
All the "injury" claims were tried at the last case and the DOL basically responded that they were all a result of the alien's non-immigrant status and not the DOL's inefficiency! That the latter is in some way contributing to the former is apparently not relevant in a court of law!!
sick_of_waiting
Registered Users (C)
July_2003 said:Main "injury" - a spouse can not work. Just try to estimate the frustration because of sitting home for 6-7 years!!!
Another example - impossibility to file a homestead exemption. Minus $500 each year plus no 3% annual cap on the raising property taxes.
Why can't you file homestead exemption? I've had it for 3 years now...it has nothing to do with your immigrant status, it depends only on the fact that whether the house for which you claim homestead exemption is your primary residence or not.
Minutes of DOL Backlog Reduction/Reengineering Briefing to AILA-DOL Liaison Committee
Philadelphia Backlog Reduction Center Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania
October 8, 2004
Present at Meeting:
For DOL: William Carlson, Steve Stefanko, Phil Raeburn, Melanie Shay, Rachel Wittman
For AILA: Fran Berger, Dyann DelVecchio, Cheryl Lenz-Calvo, Marketa Lindt, Laura Mazel, Elissa McGovern, Rebecca Sigmund, Adan Vega, Cora Tekach (AILA National Office)
Tour of Philadelphia Backlog Reduction Center:
The AILA/DOL Liaison Committee was given a tour of the new Backlog Reduction Center (BRC) in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania. The BRC buildout has been completed and the Philadelphia Regional Office has moved in. Steve Stefanko is the Center Director. DOL's new software system is in place to begin processing the backlog. The liaison team observed the contract employees at work, engaged in data entry for the cases transferred from the Philadelphia Regional Office.
Presentation by William Carlson:
DOL has conducted an extensive re-engineering of the permanent foreign labor certification program. Mr. Carlson discussed the main components of the reengineering:
(1) the DOL's vision,
(2) the role of the BRCs,
(3) the role of PERM and the Atlanta and Chicago Centers and
(4) the evolving role of the state workforce agencies in the labor certification process.
Mr. Carlson emphasized that DOL values the input and involvement of AILA in this process.
(1) Vision: The long-term goal, once PERM is implemented, is that DOL will process all temporary (H-2A, H-2B) and permanent labor certification filings at the two national processing centers in Atlanta and Chicago that report directly to the National Office. To accomplish this, DOL plans to develop uniform national standards and processes to maximize consistency, efficiencies in use of resources and responsiveness to stake holders. An example of increased efficiency is centralized processing of H-2B petitions, which will decrease the burden on individual regions with significant seasonal workloads.
(2) Backlog Reduction Centers (BRCs): An integral component of attaining the vision is the two BRCs in Philadelphia and Dallas. DOL considers the BRCs to be "time-limited intervention" to eliminate the current backlog of approximately 310,000 labor certification cases in eight quarters. Mr. Carlson stressed that the budget model is reliant on "eight fully-funded quarters." Mr. Carlson also stated that AILA will see "substantial and significant changes in processing during this fiscal year."
In terms of staffing, the BRCs will be a combination of federal employees (35-40 between the two locations) and contract workers (approximately 100 at each location). The federal staff will perform adjudicatory functions. The contractors will provide administrative support to free up the federal staff to perform professional functions. The primary criteria for the federal staff included good writing skills, analytical ability, consistency and efficiency, and preferably past experience with labor certifications. DOL notified the SWAs of the employment opportunities. The vacancies for the federal position have been posted and closed. Hiring is moving forward at the BRCs. Dallas is ahead of Philadelphia.
The contractors already on board have been entering data from the 10,000 cases transferred from the Philadelphia Regional Office. After the initial data input, the first step in the process will be an automatic generation of a Center Receipt Notification Letter (CRNL). In light of the large number of 245(i) cases from April 2001, DOL will send these letters to the attorney of record and the employer contact to confirm where the case is and to elicit information to determine whether the case is still viable. Mr. Carlson stressed that DOL will be strictly adhering to the 45-day reply deadline for the CRNLs. In response to AILA's request to consider some flexibility in light of the potential for outdated information on three-year old labor certifications, Mr. Carlson replied that providing up-to-date contact information to DOL has always been the attorneys' responsibility, and again stressed DOL would adhere to the 45-day deadline.
The BRCs will also process cases from other regions. DOL is currently in the process of transferring 20,000 cases from the Region VI (San Francisco) backlog to the BRC(s). DOL has spent considerable time deliberating on the methodology of identifying cases from around the country for transfer to the BRCs. DOL has determined that it will adhere to a First In-First Out (FIFO) approach and will utilize a different contractor to monitor productivity and ensure a "level playing field" with respect to priority dates. The contractor will monitor the sizes of the backlogs and processing times and will determine the methodology for identifying and selecting batches of cases from the regions to transfer to the BRCs. In response to an AILA question, Mr. Carlson stated that DOL would try to provide public information about the locations of batches of cases. DOL expects that in the next few weeks it will publish a notice in the Federal Register that will address some of these issues.
(3) PERM and the National Processing Centers: Assuming PERM is implemented, the National Processing Centers in Chicago and Atlanta will be the two DOL flagship processing centers to ultimately take on all DOL foreign labor program processing. DOL has secured the locations for both the Chicago and Atlanta Centers and is building the infrastructure for web-based filing. Charlene Giles, the Director of the Chicago Center, is already working to establish the Center. Gene Caso has been selected as the Director of the Atlanta Center. Mr. Caso originally came from the SWA in Florida, transferred 8-10 years ago to the Region and is a graduate of the DOL Management Program. He was involved in the planning process for the Centers. Mr. Carlson distributed a list of the current facilities (attached). The Centers are in the process of staffing up to a level of approximately 50 employees each, of which the majority will be federal employees. DOL has developed a curriculum for training the new staff.
The Atlanta and Chicago Centers will serve several functions. First, DOL plans to migrate all temporary (H-2A and H-2B) processing to the two Centers. It expects the transition to be completed by the end of the year. The second function of the Centers, subject to the publication of the PERM regulation, will be to process PERM cases. At the time of the meeting, PERM is still awaiting final clearance. Although he did not provide any specific information on the time frame of PERM, Mr. Carlson expressed confidence in the publication of a PERM regulation by the end of the calendar year and noted that DOL has in place an implementation plan for roll-out, training, etc. However, in light of some of the uncertainty surrounding the PERM rule, DOL has also developed contingency plans in the event that PERM is not published as expected. Until PERM implementation occurs, the Atlanta and Chicago Centers will function as additional BRCs. If no PERM regulation is published, additional rulemaking will be needed to resolve some of the outstanding regulatory issues not addressed in the Interim Final Rule that established the BRCs, particularly as to the role of the SWAs in the labor certification process since the states still function as the initial point of receipt of labor certification applications under the current scheme.
In the New York and San Francisco regions, federal staff will continue process permanent cases until the regional offices are closed, which DOL expects will occur by January 2006. Currently, DOL is working on integrating the computer systems for all offices into a uniform national software system/network. Temporary (H-2A and H-2B) cases are expected to be transferred to the Chicago and Atlanta PERM Centers by the end of the year.
(4) Role of the states: Under the current regulations, the states continue to accept labor certification applications. Under the proposed PERM rule, the role of the states would be virtually eliminated. Even without PERM, DOL indicates the role of the states in the labor certification process will be "greatly diminished" in FY2005 and after. DOL expects that SWAs will finish processing cases that have already been opened for review and/or recruitment. DOL expects that the contractor, developing the system for triaging cases for transfer to the BRCs, will integrate unworked state case backlogs into its plan However, DOL expects that at some point, subject to rulemaking, state offices will cease to accept new cases. Mr. Carlson advised AILA to watch the Federal Register over the next few weeks for regulatory activity on the role of the SWAs.
TCO-FS1\218926v01\6LPX01_.DOC\10/21/04
Cite as "Posted on AILA InfoNet at Doc. No. 04102615 (Oct. 26, 2004) ."
Philadelphia Backlog Reduction Center Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania
October 8, 2004
Present at Meeting:
For DOL: William Carlson, Steve Stefanko, Phil Raeburn, Melanie Shay, Rachel Wittman
For AILA: Fran Berger, Dyann DelVecchio, Cheryl Lenz-Calvo, Marketa Lindt, Laura Mazel, Elissa McGovern, Rebecca Sigmund, Adan Vega, Cora Tekach (AILA National Office)
Tour of Philadelphia Backlog Reduction Center:
The AILA/DOL Liaison Committee was given a tour of the new Backlog Reduction Center (BRC) in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania. The BRC buildout has been completed and the Philadelphia Regional Office has moved in. Steve Stefanko is the Center Director. DOL's new software system is in place to begin processing the backlog. The liaison team observed the contract employees at work, engaged in data entry for the cases transferred from the Philadelphia Regional Office.
Presentation by William Carlson:
DOL has conducted an extensive re-engineering of the permanent foreign labor certification program. Mr. Carlson discussed the main components of the reengineering:
(1) the DOL's vision,
(2) the role of the BRCs,
(3) the role of PERM and the Atlanta and Chicago Centers and
(4) the evolving role of the state workforce agencies in the labor certification process.
Mr. Carlson emphasized that DOL values the input and involvement of AILA in this process.
(1) Vision: The long-term goal, once PERM is implemented, is that DOL will process all temporary (H-2A, H-2B) and permanent labor certification filings at the two national processing centers in Atlanta and Chicago that report directly to the National Office. To accomplish this, DOL plans to develop uniform national standards and processes to maximize consistency, efficiencies in use of resources and responsiveness to stake holders. An example of increased efficiency is centralized processing of H-2B petitions, which will decrease the burden on individual regions with significant seasonal workloads.
(2) Backlog Reduction Centers (BRCs): An integral component of attaining the vision is the two BRCs in Philadelphia and Dallas. DOL considers the BRCs to be "time-limited intervention" to eliminate the current backlog of approximately 310,000 labor certification cases in eight quarters. Mr. Carlson stressed that the budget model is reliant on "eight fully-funded quarters." Mr. Carlson also stated that AILA will see "substantial and significant changes in processing during this fiscal year."
In terms of staffing, the BRCs will be a combination of federal employees (35-40 between the two locations) and contract workers (approximately 100 at each location). The federal staff will perform adjudicatory functions. The contractors will provide administrative support to free up the federal staff to perform professional functions. The primary criteria for the federal staff included good writing skills, analytical ability, consistency and efficiency, and preferably past experience with labor certifications. DOL notified the SWAs of the employment opportunities. The vacancies for the federal position have been posted and closed. Hiring is moving forward at the BRCs. Dallas is ahead of Philadelphia.
The contractors already on board have been entering data from the 10,000 cases transferred from the Philadelphia Regional Office. After the initial data input, the first step in the process will be an automatic generation of a Center Receipt Notification Letter (CRNL). In light of the large number of 245(i) cases from April 2001, DOL will send these letters to the attorney of record and the employer contact to confirm where the case is and to elicit information to determine whether the case is still viable. Mr. Carlson stressed that DOL will be strictly adhering to the 45-day reply deadline for the CRNLs. In response to AILA's request to consider some flexibility in light of the potential for outdated information on three-year old labor certifications, Mr. Carlson replied that providing up-to-date contact information to DOL has always been the attorneys' responsibility, and again stressed DOL would adhere to the 45-day deadline.
The BRCs will also process cases from other regions. DOL is currently in the process of transferring 20,000 cases from the Region VI (San Francisco) backlog to the BRC(s). DOL has spent considerable time deliberating on the methodology of identifying cases from around the country for transfer to the BRCs. DOL has determined that it will adhere to a First In-First Out (FIFO) approach and will utilize a different contractor to monitor productivity and ensure a "level playing field" with respect to priority dates. The contractor will monitor the sizes of the backlogs and processing times and will determine the methodology for identifying and selecting batches of cases from the regions to transfer to the BRCs. In response to an AILA question, Mr. Carlson stated that DOL would try to provide public information about the locations of batches of cases. DOL expects that in the next few weeks it will publish a notice in the Federal Register that will address some of these issues.
(3) PERM and the National Processing Centers: Assuming PERM is implemented, the National Processing Centers in Chicago and Atlanta will be the two DOL flagship processing centers to ultimately take on all DOL foreign labor program processing. DOL has secured the locations for both the Chicago and Atlanta Centers and is building the infrastructure for web-based filing. Charlene Giles, the Director of the Chicago Center, is already working to establish the Center. Gene Caso has been selected as the Director of the Atlanta Center. Mr. Caso originally came from the SWA in Florida, transferred 8-10 years ago to the Region and is a graduate of the DOL Management Program. He was involved in the planning process for the Centers. Mr. Carlson distributed a list of the current facilities (attached). The Centers are in the process of staffing up to a level of approximately 50 employees each, of which the majority will be federal employees. DOL has developed a curriculum for training the new staff.
The Atlanta and Chicago Centers will serve several functions. First, DOL plans to migrate all temporary (H-2A and H-2B) processing to the two Centers. It expects the transition to be completed by the end of the year. The second function of the Centers, subject to the publication of the PERM regulation, will be to process PERM cases. At the time of the meeting, PERM is still awaiting final clearance. Although he did not provide any specific information on the time frame of PERM, Mr. Carlson expressed confidence in the publication of a PERM regulation by the end of the calendar year and noted that DOL has in place an implementation plan for roll-out, training, etc. However, in light of some of the uncertainty surrounding the PERM rule, DOL has also developed contingency plans in the event that PERM is not published as expected. Until PERM implementation occurs, the Atlanta and Chicago Centers will function as additional BRCs. If no PERM regulation is published, additional rulemaking will be needed to resolve some of the outstanding regulatory issues not addressed in the Interim Final Rule that established the BRCs, particularly as to the role of the SWAs in the labor certification process since the states still function as the initial point of receipt of labor certification applications under the current scheme.
In the New York and San Francisco regions, federal staff will continue process permanent cases until the regional offices are closed, which DOL expects will occur by January 2006. Currently, DOL is working on integrating the computer systems for all offices into a uniform national software system/network. Temporary (H-2A and H-2B) cases are expected to be transferred to the Chicago and Atlanta PERM Centers by the end of the year.
(4) Role of the states: Under the current regulations, the states continue to accept labor certification applications. Under the proposed PERM rule, the role of the states would be virtually eliminated. Even without PERM, DOL indicates the role of the states in the labor certification process will be "greatly diminished" in FY2005 and after. DOL expects that SWAs will finish processing cases that have already been opened for review and/or recruitment. DOL expects that the contractor, developing the system for triaging cases for transfer to the BRCs, will integrate unworked state case backlogs into its plan However, DOL expects that at some point, subject to rulemaking, state offices will cease to accept new cases. Mr. Carlson advised AILA to watch the Federal Register over the next few weeks for regulatory activity on the role of the SWAs.
TCO-FS1\218926v01\6LPX01_.DOC\10/21/04
Cite as "Posted on AILA InfoNet at Doc. No. 04102615 (Oct. 26, 2004) ."
just a humble request, Please do not write anything on this thread other than LC approvals from BEC Philadelphia, you can always write other stuff in any related thread or create a new thread
greatgc said:Folks,
CAn any one pls help me with the process of "how to get the status screen shot" of the pending cases in the BEC?
Thanks
Seems like they were planning to use a seperate contractor to oversee the process and make sure that the case load is distributed evenly between Dallas and Philly and that they process cases evenly and that PD based FIFO is preserved.
May be we can contact that contractor to get some insight?
Also, they mention that full funding is planned only for 8 quarters. Does anyone know when that 2 years start? On Oct 2004 or March 2005? And, if they decide to extend the contract, seems like it will be with less funding, which would mean even slower processing. I think this thing will take 4-6 years for people like me who are towards the end of the queue (late 2004 - early 2005 cases).
I think that the best thing we can do at this point is to get these people post information. Information about the cases. Case details such as employee name, beneficiary name, salary are not necessary and may not be appropriate for privacy concerns. However, case number and the list of events with their dates and the current status is sufficient. They should post the process flowchart with estimated times spent in each process queue. Once we know where our case is in the process flow chart, we should be able to estimate when it will be adjucated. Also, they should post statistics regarding how many cases have been data entered, how many 45 days letters sent, how many received, how many cases adjucated, how many rejected and the number of cases in each queue in the process flowchart. They should also post the current PD they are adjucating. The posting should be regular and frequent. If they post every month, it would take another 3-4 months before we realize nothing is happening. The postings should be weekly if not daily (it is a straightforward task to dump a database and no human interaction is needed whatsoever).
This is what we should aim and press for. Everything else will come after that. This way, we will have official data to back our claims. Just my thoughts.
May be we can contact that contractor to get some insight?
Also, they mention that full funding is planned only for 8 quarters. Does anyone know when that 2 years start? On Oct 2004 or March 2005? And, if they decide to extend the contract, seems like it will be with less funding, which would mean even slower processing. I think this thing will take 4-6 years for people like me who are towards the end of the queue (late 2004 - early 2005 cases).
I think that the best thing we can do at this point is to get these people post information. Information about the cases. Case details such as employee name, beneficiary name, salary are not necessary and may not be appropriate for privacy concerns. However, case number and the list of events with their dates and the current status is sufficient. They should post the process flowchart with estimated times spent in each process queue. Once we know where our case is in the process flow chart, we should be able to estimate when it will be adjucated. Also, they should post statistics regarding how many cases have been data entered, how many 45 days letters sent, how many received, how many cases adjucated, how many rejected and the number of cases in each queue in the process flowchart. They should also post the current PD they are adjucating. The posting should be regular and frequent. If they post every month, it would take another 3-4 months before we realize nothing is happening. The postings should be weekly if not daily (it is a straightforward task to dump a database and no human interaction is needed whatsoever).
This is what we should aim and press for. Everything else will come after that. This way, we will have official data to back our claims. Just my thoughts.
bigbang2001
Registered Users (C)
The date of this information is October 26 2004.triniti said:Minutes of DOL Backlog Reduction/Reengineering Briefing to AILA-DOL Liaison Committee
Philadelphia Backlog Reduction Center Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania
October 8, 2004
Present at Meeting:
For DOL: William Carlson, Steve Stefanko, Phil Raeburn, Melanie Shay, Rachel Wittman
For AILA: Fran Berger, Dyann DelVecchio, Cheryl Lenz-Calvo, Marketa Lindt, Laura Mazel, Elissa McGovern, Rebecca Sigmund, Adan Vega, Cora Tekach (AILA National Office)
Tour of Philadelphia Backlog Reduction Center:
The AILA/DOL Liaison Committee was given a tour of the new Backlog Reduction Center (BRC) in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania. The BRC buildout has been completed and the Philadelphia Regional Office has moved in. Steve Stefanko is the Center Director. DOL's new software system is in place to begin processing the backlog. The liaison team observed the contract employees at work, engaged in data entry for the cases transferred from the Philadelphia Regional Office.
Presentation by William Carlson:
DOL has conducted an extensive re-engineering of the permanent foreign labor certification program. Mr. Carlson discussed the main components of the reengineering:
(1) the DOL's vision,
(2) the role of the BRCs,
(3) the role of PERM and the Atlanta and Chicago Centers and
(4) the evolving role of the state workforce agencies in the labor certification process.
Mr. Carlson emphasized that DOL values the input and involvement of AILA in this process.
(1) Vision: The long-term goal, once PERM is implemented, is that DOL will process all temporary (H-2A, H-2B) and permanent labor certification filings at the two national processing centers in Atlanta and Chicago that report directly to the National Office. To accomplish this, DOL plans to develop uniform national standards and processes to maximize consistency, efficiencies in use of resources and responsiveness to stake holders. An example of increased efficiency is centralized processing of H-2B petitions, which will decrease the burden on individual regions with significant seasonal workloads.
(2) Backlog Reduction Centers (BRCs): An integral component of attaining the vision is the two BRCs in Philadelphia and Dallas. DOL considers the BRCs to be "time-limited intervention" to eliminate the current backlog of approximately 310,000 labor certification cases in eight quarters. Mr. Carlson stressed that the budget model is reliant on "eight fully-funded quarters." Mr. Carlson also stated that AILA will see "substantial and significant changes in processing during this fiscal year."
In terms of staffing, the BRCs will be a combination of federal employees (35-40 between the two locations) and contract workers (approximately 100 at each location). The federal staff will perform adjudicatory functions. The contractors will provide administrative support to free up the federal staff to perform professional functions. The primary criteria for the federal staff included good writing skills, analytical ability, consistency and efficiency, and preferably past experience with labor certifications. DOL notified the SWAs of the employment opportunities. The vacancies for the federal position have been posted and closed. Hiring is moving forward at the BRCs. Dallas is ahead of Philadelphia.
The contractors already on board have been entering data from the 10,000 cases transferred from the Philadelphia Regional Office. After the initial data input, the first step in the process will be an automatic generation of a Center Receipt Notification Letter (CRNL). In light of the large number of 245(i) cases from April 2001, DOL will send these letters to the attorney of record and the employer contact to confirm where the case is and to elicit information to determine whether the case is still viable. Mr. Carlson stressed that DOL will be strictly adhering to the 45-day reply deadline for the CRNLs. In response to AILA's request to consider some flexibility in light of the potential for outdated information on three-year old labor certifications, Mr. Carlson replied that providing up-to-date contact information to DOL has always been the attorneys' responsibility, and again stressed DOL would adhere to the 45-day deadline.
The BRCs will also process cases from other regions. DOL is currently in the process of transferring 20,000 cases from the Region VI (San Francisco) backlog to the BRC(s). DOL has spent considerable time deliberating on the methodology of identifying cases from around the country for transfer to the BRCs. DOL has determined that it will adhere to a First In-First Out (FIFO) approach and will utilize a different contractor to monitor productivity and ensure a "level playing field" with respect to priority dates. The contractor will monitor the sizes of the backlogs and processing times and will determine the methodology for identifying and selecting batches of cases from the regions to transfer to the BRCs. In response to an AILA question, Mr. Carlson stated that DOL would try to provide public information about the locations of batches of cases. DOL expects that in the next few weeks it will publish a notice in the Federal Register that will address some of these issues.
(3) PERM and the National Processing Centers: Assuming PERM is implemented, the National Processing Centers in Chicago and Atlanta will be the two DOL flagship processing centers to ultimately take on all DOL foreign labor program processing. DOL has secured the locations for both the Chicago and Atlanta Centers and is building the infrastructure for web-based filing. Charlene Giles, the Director of the Chicago Center, is already working to establish the Center. Gene Caso has been selected as the Director of the Atlanta Center. Mr. Caso originally came from the SWA in Florida, transferred 8-10 years ago to the Region and is a graduate of the DOL Management Program. He was involved in the planning process for the Centers. Mr. Carlson distributed a list of the current facilities (attached). The Centers are in the process of staffing up to a level of approximately 50 employees each, of which the majority will be federal employees. DOL has developed a curriculum for training the new staff.
The Atlanta and Chicago Centers will serve several functions. First, DOL plans to migrate all temporary (H-2A and H-2B) processing to the two Centers. It expects the transition to be completed by the end of the year. The second function of the Centers, subject to the publication of the PERM regulation, will be to process PERM cases. At the time of the meeting, PERM is still awaiting final clearance. Although he did not provide any specific information on the time frame of PERM, Mr. Carlson expressed confidence in the publication of a PERM regulation by the end of the calendar year and noted that DOL has in place an implementation plan for roll-out, training, etc. However, in light of some of the uncertainty surrounding the PERM rule, DOL has also developed contingency plans in the event that PERM is not published as expected. Until PERM implementation occurs, the Atlanta and Chicago Centers will function as additional BRCs. If no PERM regulation is published, additional rulemaking will be needed to resolve some of the outstanding regulatory issues not addressed in the Interim Final Rule that established the BRCs, particularly as to the role of the SWAs in the labor certification process since the states still function as the initial point of receipt of labor certification applications under the current scheme.
In the New York and San Francisco regions, federal staff will continue process permanent cases until the regional offices are closed, which DOL expects will occur by January 2006. Currently, DOL is working on integrating the computer systems for all offices into a uniform national software system/network. Temporary (H-2A and H-2B) cases are expected to be transferred to the Chicago and Atlanta PERM Centers by the end of the year.
(4) Role of the states: Under the current regulations, the states continue to accept labor certification applications. Under the proposed PERM rule, the role of the states would be virtually eliminated. Even without PERM, DOL indicates the role of the states in the labor certification process will be "greatly diminished" in FY2005 and after. DOL expects that SWAs will finish processing cases that have already been opened for review and/or recruitment. DOL expects that the contractor, developing the system for triaging cases for transfer to the BRCs, will integrate unworked state case backlogs into its plan However, DOL expects that at some point, subject to rulemaking, state offices will cease to accept new cases. Mr. Carlson advised AILA to watch the Federal Register over the next few weeks for regulatory activity on the role of the SWAs.
TCO-FS1\218926v01\6LPX01_.DOC\10/21/04
Cite as "Posted on AILA InfoNet at Doc. No. 04102615 (Oct. 26, 2004) ."
What is the point in quoting year old information ?