Philadelphia Backlog Elimination Center Tracking
- Thread starter gp111
- Start date
Folks,
I just thought of another way to try to get information out from the Department of Labor. Usually all federal agencies come under the purview of the FOIA.
Is it possible for the people who were interfacing with Rajiv Khanna to see if Rajiv Khanna can make a request under FOIA to get information about the status of labor certifications?
This is just a thought that came to mind. Since the option for the class action lawsuit has already been exhausted perhaps this avenue can be tried.
Any takers?
Samarth
I just thought of another way to try to get information out from the Department of Labor. Usually all federal agencies come under the purview of the FOIA.
Is it possible for the people who were interfacing with Rajiv Khanna to see if Rajiv Khanna can make a request under FOIA to get information about the status of labor certifications?
This is just a thought that came to mind. Since the option for the class action lawsuit has already been exhausted perhaps this avenue can be tried.
Any takers?
Samarth
sick_of_waiting
Registered Users (C)
I like the idea of writing provocative letters to foreign press in our home countries. The Bush administration is very sensitive about its image abroad and such letters may end up ringing some bells in the upper echelons of powers.
stucklabor
Registered Users (C)
Samarth, Kahada
Samarth, it was EB2 filed in PA state - Harrisburg SWA.
Kahada, it was certified by Stefanko. When I went home there was a separate paper notification from PBEC to me personally, in addition to the letter to my lawyers.
samarthk said:
Samarth, it was EB2 filed in PA state - Harrisburg SWA.
Kahada, it was certified by Stefanko. When I went home there was a separate paper notification from PBEC to me personally, in addition to the letter to my lawyers.
How do they (PBEC) obtain our address
How does PBEC know one's address to send the notification to one's home. Is it part of the LCA application that was filed long back? In case one shifts/moves from one apartment to another, what happens to the notification communication? Does it go to the old address?
stucklabor said:
How does PBEC know one's address to send the notification to one's home. Is it part of the LCA application that was filed long back? In case one shifts/moves from one apartment to another, what happens to the notification communication? Does it go to the old address?
ramana_pasula
Registered Users (C)
How do I check if my case is approved?
Hello all,
I am hearing that some cases are getting approved here & there.I mean not by priority date order.If by chance my labor is approved how do I check the status.My employer/lawyer might not inform me as soon as it gets approved.
Hello all,
I am hearing that some cases are getting approved here & there.I mean not by priority date order.If by chance my labor is approved how do I check the status.My employer/lawyer might not inform me as soon as it gets approved.
Xipe Totec
Registered Users (C)
venram said:
1) Yes
2) Your lawyer can send them a notification about the address change
3) If 2) wasn't done, then yes, I suppose
Hi GC Lover
Iam seeing this trend nowadays. Anyone who got 45 day Letter recently in Sep 05 or Oct 05 are getting their cases approved ( Not all ofcourse. PBEC still keep their Time tested Methodology of Randomness however)
People who have got their 45 days letter in Jan to Mar 05 time period are still struck irrespective of their old prioroty dates
GC_Lover said:Congrats...
I am unable to believe this either
. It's wierd how the whole process works.
Iam seeing this trend nowadays. Anyone who got 45 day Letter recently in Sep 05 or Oct 05 are getting their cases approved ( Not all ofcourse. PBEC still keep their Time tested Methodology of Randomness however)
People who have got their 45 days letter in Jan to Mar 05 time period are still struck irrespective of their old prioroty dates
NoMoreSilence
Registered Users (C)
Let's try that!
Good to hear that! At least, one person is thinking like I am! Let's try to collect the info and stats and draft it. I am sure the effect would be atleast greater than zero!!!
Good to hear that! At least, one person is thinking like I am! Let's try to collect the info and stats and draft it. I am sure the effect would be atleast greater than zero!!!
sick_of_waiting said:
Gurus help me if you understand response from my paralegal for my case status.
My labor applied from Philly as Non RIR
Case # P-04287-195XX
PD: October 2nd 2002, Reached Reginal on June 9th 2004
45 days letter received on March 31 2005
Respone to 45 days letter submitted on 4/27/05
status on 09/01/05 : Data Review
Couple of times sent 7TH YR extension proof but could not able to find status.
Requested my attorney to findout status, for that got response from my paralegal yesterdsay as below
" Your case is awaiting adjudication at the Backlog Elimination Center. As soon as we receive a decision, we will contact you immediately.
Thank you for your continued patience in this very long process."
I did not understand what is the "awaiting adjudication" status means??
AS we all know
1) Incomplete, 2) data Review 3) TR/RIR 4) Final Review 5) Approved/ or Denied
I dont know which catagory my status fall on the 5 status above
I am trying to get attorney but i could not get in touch.
Could any body help me to underatand where is the status at??
Thanks a lot your help
My labor applied from Philly as Non RIR
Case # P-04287-195XX
PD: October 2nd 2002, Reached Reginal on June 9th 2004
45 days letter received on March 31 2005
Respone to 45 days letter submitted on 4/27/05
status on 09/01/05 : Data Review
Couple of times sent 7TH YR extension proof but could not able to find status.
Requested my attorney to findout status, for that got response from my paralegal yesterdsay as below
" Your case is awaiting adjudication at the Backlog Elimination Center. As soon as we receive a decision, we will contact you immediately.
Thank you for your continued patience in this very long process."
I did not understand what is the "awaiting adjudication" status means??
AS we all know
1) Incomplete, 2) data Review 3) TR/RIR 4) Final Review 5) Approved/ or Denied
I dont know which catagory my status fall on the 5 status above
I am trying to get attorney but i could not get in touch.
Could any body help me to underatand where is the status at??
Thanks a lot your help
Last edited by a moderator:
stucklabor
Registered Users (C)
NYT, look at the BEC tracker spreadsheet
NYT, look at the BEC tracker spreadsheet maintained by JustWatching. You will find it in the BEC tracker thread. JW posts it every week.
NYT said:
NYT, look at the BEC tracker spreadsheet maintained by JustWatching. You will find it in the BEC tracker thread. JW posts it every week.
AnandNJ said:
You might be in the last but one stage.
Awaiting Adjudication could be - Final Review Status. Once an officer takes it up and recommend the case to Certifying Officer, he will then will mark it as approved.
Lots of cases were in RIR Stage for a Longtime. Normally when it is Final review it may take between 30-40 days. Not Sure when it wnet to Final Review in your case.
Yoiu could expect the Good News any time from Now and before Jan 2006
All the Best & Good Luck
Xipe Totec
Registered Users (C)
"awaiting adjucation" means it's waiting to be adjucated... like all our cases, actually
Check out this article in the Wall Street Journal - by Gary Becker, a Nobel Price Winner..alas this administration in immune to such logic
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
By GARY S. BECKER
November 30, 2005; Page A18
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
* * *
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
* * *
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
By GARY S. BECKER
November 30, 2005; Page A18
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
* * *
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
* * *
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.