Philadelphia Backlog Elimination Center Tracking
- Thread starter gp111
- Start date
Not agree
2) If we tell the DOL that we are ready to pay more to speed up the processing, can they deny that? Under what grounds?
I don't agree with this suggestion. We should not make it a "norm" whereby we can pay them off in order to process our files promptly. Why should we pay for their ineffiencies???? DOL will behaves like the senate requesting additional fees from us eventhough it is not our fault the EB visas retrogressed.
TechGuy said:
2) If we tell the DOL that we are ready to pay more to speed up the processing, can they deny that? Under what grounds?
I don't agree with this suggestion. We should not make it a "norm" whereby we can pay them off in order to process our files promptly. Why should we pay for their ineffiencies???? DOL will behaves like the senate requesting additional fees from us eventhough it is not our fault the EB visas retrogressed.
Last edited by a moderator:
People are urged to continue their efforts to contact the members of the Congress.
11/10/2005: How S. 1932 Will Help Deficit Reduction, the Goal of H.R. 4241?
Members of the House of Representatives, the Senate bill, S. 1932, not only helps the America to recruit the brightests, to retain the brightests, and to keep the jobs in the U.S. and not to outsource our jobs, but also will help to reduce the nation's deficit upto $150,000,000.00.
Senate bill proposes to impose $500.00 additional I-140 filing fee for EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3. Considering the fact that the numbers for EB-4 and EB-5 are negligible, the total numbers may run upto close to 140,000 a year.
Senate bill proposes to impose $500.00 additional I-140 filing fees for 90,000 recaptured EB immigrant visa numbers.
Senate bill proposed to impose $500.00 addtional H-1B filing fees for 90,000 recaptured H-1B visa numbers.
The Senate immigration recapture part of the S.1932 is a winner for America and for the Congress from the four corners of the common sense! Please amend the H.R. 4241 to add this part (Section 8001 and 8002) of the Senate bill to Section 5100 to the House bill, H.R. 4241.
11/10/2005: H.R. 4241 Likely Tabled on the Floor Today
Republican House Majority Leader, Blunt says GOP takes this to the floor on Thursday. The chance for this bill is improving as the sticky issue relating to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling and to ease restrictions on offshore drilling may be removed from the bill. Currently, this issue is considered to be a roadblock to passage of the bill, but potential removal of this provision is likely to pave a way to passage of this bill, not necessarily today but when the House returns next Monday. There are not too many days left before the Congressional session will be over for this session. If the House passes this bill, H.R. 4241, there is a good chance that H.R. 4241 and S. 1932 may go to the conference before the Congress will go into recess. People are urged to continue their efforts to contact the members of the Congress.
From immigration-law.com
11/10/2005: How S. 1932 Will Help Deficit Reduction, the Goal of H.R. 4241?
Members of the House of Representatives, the Senate bill, S. 1932, not only helps the America to recruit the brightests, to retain the brightests, and to keep the jobs in the U.S. and not to outsource our jobs, but also will help to reduce the nation's deficit upto $150,000,000.00.
Senate bill proposes to impose $500.00 additional I-140 filing fee for EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3. Considering the fact that the numbers for EB-4 and EB-5 are negligible, the total numbers may run upto close to 140,000 a year.
Senate bill proposes to impose $500.00 additional I-140 filing fees for 90,000 recaptured EB immigrant visa numbers.
Senate bill proposed to impose $500.00 addtional H-1B filing fees for 90,000 recaptured H-1B visa numbers.
The Senate immigration recapture part of the S.1932 is a winner for America and for the Congress from the four corners of the common sense! Please amend the H.R. 4241 to add this part (Section 8001 and 8002) of the Senate bill to Section 5100 to the House bill, H.R. 4241.
11/10/2005: H.R. 4241 Likely Tabled on the Floor Today
Republican House Majority Leader, Blunt says GOP takes this to the floor on Thursday. The chance for this bill is improving as the sticky issue relating to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling and to ease restrictions on offshore drilling may be removed from the bill. Currently, this issue is considered to be a roadblock to passage of the bill, but potential removal of this provision is likely to pave a way to passage of this bill, not necessarily today but when the House returns next Monday. There are not too many days left before the Congressional session will be over for this session. If the House passes this bill, H.R. 4241, there is a good chance that H.R. 4241 and S. 1932 may go to the conference before the Congress will go into recess. People are urged to continue their efforts to contact the members of the Congress.
From immigration-law.com
Resources vs Number of applications = Increased time
The slowness is partly because of the lack of resources they have... If there are more people in PBEC then no matter what they do data entry or processing.. it will move faster..
They have a fixed budget and cannot hire more people than the budget allows.. Even with a case against them they still have to process the applications and speed cannot change unless the number of people who are working change...Filing lawsuits against them can increase awareness among other people but PBEC is already aware of the situation...
When we file a lawsuit.. they will have to move efforts in that direction and also what will they say... They will say all our resources are doing their best but there are so many cases that the time factor is inevitable and no one can blame them ... I think we lost the last case also? (I read in a previous post)...
The buget increase for BEC will help I believe to speed up process... We are charged more and more fees for other reasons for H1 etc... but that money shld be channeled to BEC hires... we should fight for PBEC to get our money or more money...
We should find a way to promote hiring more data entry and processing people.. either my providing contributions for more hires or something like that... I am not sure if its possible but we shld try.... thats my thinking...
We shld think how to help them move faster...
The slowness is partly because of the lack of resources they have... If there are more people in PBEC then no matter what they do data entry or processing.. it will move faster..
They have a fixed budget and cannot hire more people than the budget allows.. Even with a case against them they still have to process the applications and speed cannot change unless the number of people who are working change...Filing lawsuits against them can increase awareness among other people but PBEC is already aware of the situation...
When we file a lawsuit.. they will have to move efforts in that direction and also what will they say... They will say all our resources are doing their best but there are so many cases that the time factor is inevitable and no one can blame them ... I think we lost the last case also? (I read in a previous post)...
The buget increase for BEC will help I believe to speed up process... We are charged more and more fees for other reasons for H1 etc... but that money shld be channeled to BEC hires... we should fight for PBEC to get our money or more money...
We should find a way to promote hiring more data entry and processing people.. either my providing contributions for more hires or something like that... I am not sure if its possible but we shld try.... thats my thinking...
We shld think how to help them move faster...
fastergcwanted
Registered Users (C)
Not True
Most people's anger come from the fact that they are inconsistent rather than slow. Slowness is still a problem, but at least if they were processing FIFO and reporting dates for each queue to public it would have been lot easier for people to digest what u are saying.
Most people's anger come from the fact that they are inconsistent rather than slow. Slowness is still a problem, but at least if they were processing FIFO and reporting dates for each queue to public it would have been lot easier for people to digest what u are saying.
organised
i think the suggestion that every area people come together first form groups with later one person representing them and we see our strength in each areas then as a whole we first do the protest rally outside phil bec which will bring us in the public eye then if need be the law suit which will have a greater impact
i think the suggestion that every area people come together first form groups with later one person representing them and we see our strength in each areas then as a whole we first do the protest rally outside phil bec which will bring us in the public eye then if need be the law suit which will have a greater impact
boston_mass
New Member
TR means non-RIR?
Hi, Guys, I am sorry if this question does not sound too smart, but this is soo immportant to me. My lawyer did recruiment ads and everything but my 7th year h1 reply says type: TR. Can someone tell me my case is RIR or non-RIR?
This is in response to your inquiry on your pending application for Foreign Labor Employment Certification.
Case Information
ETA Case Number: T-05180-
Priority Date: 04/22/2003
Processing Type: TR
Case Source: State
Thanks guys.
Hi, Guys, I am sorry if this question does not sound too smart, but this is soo immportant to me. My lawyer did recruiment ads and everything but my 7th year h1 reply says type: TR. Can someone tell me my case is RIR or non-RIR?
This is in response to your inquiry on your pending application for Foreign Labor Employment Certification.
Case Information
ETA Case Number: T-05180-
Priority Date: 04/22/2003
Processing Type: TR
Case Source: State
Thanks guys.
cantstandit
Registered Users (C)
rirmemgc said:
rirmemgc, if your PD is really March/2005, your lawyer made a big mistake, because he should have waited a couple of days (literally), and filed PERM.
I'd definitely suggest you forget about your BEC case and file a new one through PERM, you'll get your labor certified in MUCH less time (possibly 2 to 3 years earlier).
cantstandit
Registered Users (C)
boston_mass said:
There IS a big difference between RIR and TR (non-RIR), and your case could be delayed because it would fall in a different queue ... so if your case is really RIR, then it was most likely a typo during the temporary data entry, it happened the same to me. Confirm with your lawyer which type it is, and then just have your lawyer email them (using the h1b address), requesting the BEC to change the field to RIR, if that's the case.
They'll update the field in the system. Check back after a couple of weeks.
good luck
fastergcwanted said:
No. PBEC is definitely SLOW. VERY SLOW. Incosistency exists in both DBEC and PBEC. But I think we all agree that whoever landed in DBEC is much luckier. Because they see a better hope that their case will be approved in the next few months. Why, because DBEC is so muhc faster. They don't follow strict FIFO, but they have been churning out cases. If you look at Justwatching's tracker, 41% of the DBEC cases have been approved. Going at this speed, everyone at DBEC, no matter what PD, will get out in a year. While us in PBEC see 10% approval rate and recently the processing has stalled (1 case per month on this forum?) When are we going to see our approval.
For me, the anger is PBEC is not moving. And there is no excuse since DBEC which is using the same system is moving fast. At this point, pushing for strict FIFO is shooting our own foot. I'm sure both centers are trying to follow some type of FIFO. At least we don't see any approvals for 2004 guys before 2002 guys. As they said, and I beleive, given the magnitude of the case transfer to BECs, a strict FIFO would require they open up all boxes and do a complete data entry for each of the 300,000 cases into the system before doing anything else. We already know how long it took them to finish just the partial entry. The point is, the cases are boxed in chronical order. If it is not exactly chronical, it is at least 90% chronical. We don't want the PBEC to resort the files. They just need to continue moving forward with processing, we will all get out sooner.
fastergcwanted
Registered Users (C)
Agree and Disagree.
Agreed, PBEC is very very slow and that's a problem. My point was that if we consider any lawsuits, that won't fly. They can throw away the argument by pointing out lack of resources, budget issues etc. etc. It will never work. Our best bet is to ask for more transperancy. That way every one has some idea about when their case might be processed and they can think about other options such as giving up PD, filing for PERM etc.
With due respect, I don't agree that they need to enter all the cases in order to follow FIFO either. On the contrary, they have most of the cases entered partially, which is more than enough to start pulling cases from the front of the queue. This is not only fair, it's also following the principle on which BECs were based.
My PD is April 2003, much later than some of you here. But, I share the pain of guys with early 2001 cases and without 45 Day letters while DEC 2003 cases are being approved. And if you see the trend, 2004 cases will get approved very soon leaving behind old cases. Regardless of what BEC it is...this is the BIGGEST pain.
Agreed, PBEC is very very slow and that's a problem. My point was that if we consider any lawsuits, that won't fly. They can throw away the argument by pointing out lack of resources, budget issues etc. etc. It will never work. Our best bet is to ask for more transperancy. That way every one has some idea about when their case might be processed and they can think about other options such as giving up PD, filing for PERM etc.
With due respect, I don't agree that they need to enter all the cases in order to follow FIFO either. On the contrary, they have most of the cases entered partially, which is more than enough to start pulling cases from the front of the queue. This is not only fair, it's also following the principle on which BECs were based.
My PD is April 2003, much later than some of you here. But, I share the pain of guys with early 2001 cases and without 45 Day letters while DEC 2003 cases are being approved. And if you see the trend, 2004 cases will get approved very soon leaving behind old cases. Regardless of what BEC it is...this is the BIGGEST pain.
VAhoper said:
fastergcwanted
Registered Users (C)
"are more or less FIFO already"
That's very funny.
That's very funny.
ItsTough said:
cantstandit
Registered Users (C)
fastergcwanted said:
that's what I think too ... at this point, they already HAVE all cases temporarily entered, so they KNOW which cases belong to 2003, 2004, etc ... so it's pointless to stop adjudicating to finish the full data entry ! they could keep a small team doing data entry, while the majority of resources could adjudicate on cases already fully entered, based on FIFO.
Even if they still have to do full data entry for 2001 cases, then just get the freakin' 2001 boxes from the warehouse and do them FIRST ! It's such an idiotic process, I can't believe it.
Some_GreenCard
Registered Users (C)
Good for you.
I guess there if no FIFO in releasing 45 days letter also.
I guess there if no FIFO in releasing 45 days letter also.
saraiks said:
Voice Your Support for S.1932 NOW!
It is your finger tips away. Click below link to send your message to your Congressional delegate in your district. Just type in your Zip Code and write your message and click!
To view the current proceedings on the House floor, please click here.
http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/issues/bills/?billtype=H.R.&billnumb=4241&congress=109
courtesy: www.immigration-law.com
It is your finger tips away. Click below link to send your message to your Congressional delegate in your district. Just type in your Zip Code and write your message and click!
To view the current proceedings on the House floor, please click here.
http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/issues/bills/?billtype=H.R.&billnumb=4241&congress=109
courtesy: www.immigration-law.com
Last edited by a moderator: