Philadelphia Backlog Elimination Center Tracking
- Thread starter gp111
- Start date
GC_from_NJ
Registered Users (C)
LoveNY - I think there is some mis-information. Unless you don't have your I-140 approved with the old PD, you cannot use the old PD while filing I-485.
LoveNY said:
rajlion said:
Hi
If your office has many Labor filed using that address they can still mainatain a Virtual office for some more time and that way you donlt have to file again. The cost of re filing is huge in comparison to having a skeleton offcie. If you have alaredy replied 45 day letter then no problem about your change of office
saknia said:
Saknia,
A couple of quick questions.
Why should one re-file if the address is changed?
Should he file only if the office moves to a different state cause each state's labor rules, prevailing wage etc ..are different?
My office changed from one side of the city to another, does it mean that all the employees who have filed GC from my employer have to file again?..
Thanks for the answers.
nshalady said:I got my labor approval notice from PBEC this afternoon.
State: DE
PD : 06/02/2003
RD: 10/2004
Cat: RIR - EB3
Case# : P-04293-23xxx
45-Day Letter: 03/2005
Approval Date: 06/08/2006
Received the letter today directly from PBEC (just the copy of the covering letter sent to my lawyer).
Happy that my long wait for labor is over. I guess I am the luckier one among all unlucky peopleMoving on to the next step. Wish you all all the best in your wait for labor approval.
I definitely think that this person is lucky, cause mine is
PD : 6/2/2003
RD: 2/28/2004
Cat: RIR - EB2
Case# : P-04301 XXXX
45-Day Letter: 03/2005
STATE : CALIFORNIA.
I think state is additional factor for not getting approval. Anyway I am sure I am unlucky in these kind of matters.
Can anybody guess what could be other factors ?
Thanks Sakina
Thanks Sakina for taking the time and responding to my query. I did consult the attorney and he suggested the same as you did. However, company B wants me to transfer H1B so I may do that and keep the process with company A in parallel.
Thanks,
Raj
Thanks Sakina for taking the time and responding to my query. I did consult the attorney and he suggested the same as you did. However, company B wants me to transfer H1B so I may do that and keep the process with company A in parallel.
Thanks,
Raj
PBECIsKillingMe
Registered Users (C)
crk_csl said:
Check your mailbox tomorrow buddy
StressTestInUSA
Registered Users (C)
rajlion said:
Sounds something like mine,
My ex-employer had an office in NY and NJ..I filed from NJ as it was slighty faster than NY. My great boss sold off the NJ office to another guy, I dint know about it until 6 months later. Spent every penny on that labor to file it in Dec 2002. Luckily, the NJ office partner bought it ans replied to go ahead with the 45day letter,though it was 'acquired' by the new company. I spoke to some paralegals at that time and they said that though NJ office is closed and they have a NY office with exact similar name it is fine, dont know how far it is true.. But in my case the company filed in NJ had different names...NY was xxxx Engineers,NJ was xxxx Associates,so the paralegal said it will not work out...
Anyway for the moment saved by the skin as the new company which took over the NJ company is going ahead with the Labor..
Bottomline dont lose hope..why did the dumb attorney wake up after 4.5 yrs..!! Actually in these matters we shud be very proactive as we r the one who will get screwed royally.
Hi Gurus....Please guide,
I have couple of questions. My current employer (a big firm) has my LC filed from NY on 3/29/02 (4.2 years now) and my old employer from which i have LC (PD Mar, 15,2001) and I-140 cleared from NY.
Questions :
1. Our IT group with my current employer is moved to NJ and out attorney says that LC has to be filed from NJ through PERM since your work location state has changed..IF I APPLY THROUGH PERM FROM NJ, WILL I BE ABLE TO USE THE PD FROM MY OLD EMPLOYER FROM NY (AS I HAVE LABOR AND I-140 CLEARED FROM NY) ??
2. IF I GET LC APPROVAL FROM NY 3/29/02 (4.2 YEARS) AND APPLY FOR I-140/I-485 USING THE OLD PD FROM OLD EMPLOYER... Mar, 15,2001)...I CAN REQUEST MY MANAGER TO LET ME STAY IN NY LOCATION TILL I APPLY I-140/I-485 AND THEN MOVE TO NJ AFTER I APPLY SO THAT I DONT HAVE TO APPLY FOR NEW LC THRU PERM FROM NJ. WILL THIS WORK OR COMPLICATE THE SITUATION MORE ???...
I am loosing my sleep and feel very helpless.....Please guide me...
I have couple of questions. My current employer (a big firm) has my LC filed from NY on 3/29/02 (4.2 years now) and my old employer from which i have LC (PD Mar, 15,2001) and I-140 cleared from NY.
Questions :
1. Our IT group with my current employer is moved to NJ and out attorney says that LC has to be filed from NJ through PERM since your work location state has changed..IF I APPLY THROUGH PERM FROM NJ, WILL I BE ABLE TO USE THE PD FROM MY OLD EMPLOYER FROM NY (AS I HAVE LABOR AND I-140 CLEARED FROM NY) ??
2. IF I GET LC APPROVAL FROM NY 3/29/02 (4.2 YEARS) AND APPLY FOR I-140/I-485 USING THE OLD PD FROM OLD EMPLOYER... Mar, 15,2001)...I CAN REQUEST MY MANAGER TO LET ME STAY IN NY LOCATION TILL I APPLY I-140/I-485 AND THEN MOVE TO NJ AFTER I APPLY SO THAT I DONT HAVE TO APPLY FOR NEW LC THRU PERM FROM NJ. WILL THIS WORK OR COMPLICATE THE SITUATION MORE ???...
I am loosing my sleep and feel very helpless.....Please guide me...
StressTestInUSA said:
GC_from_NJ
Registered Users (C)
1. You should be able to use the PD as your I-140 is cleared. So I think you should be good to use the Mar 15, 2001 PD.
2. As long as both the LC applications are similar, you should be able to work it around as mentioned.
Consult a professional attorney for details.
Good luck !!
2. As long as both the LC applications are similar, you should be able to work it around as mentioned.
Consult a professional attorney for details.
Good luck !!
rajlion said:
from murthy.com
From murthy.com
1. Labor Certifications Closed in Error : DOL Responds
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a letter on June 1, 2006 regarding backlog processing center (BPC) labor certifications (LCs) that were closed in error. The letter is in response to a final demand for action, under threat of a lawsuit, from the American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF). AILF threatened to file a lawsuit against the DOL unless there was a policy change.
AILF raised several problems that need to be corrected by the DOL. Among these is the fact that the BPC has closed LCs for failure to respond to the DOL's 45-day letter when the employers and/or attorneys in these cases never received the 45-day letter. Another problem cited by AILF is in cases where the BPC issued the 45-day letters and the employers filed their responses timely, but the DOL incorrectly closed the cases stating that there was a failure to respond. This was caused by various mail and data processing backlogs that prevented the responses from being entered into the system in a timely fashion. The result was that the cases were denied for failure to respond, notwithstanding their proper responses. The DOL letter addresses the first scenario, in which 45-day letters were not received, but does not address the latter situation.
DOL RESPONSE
45-day Letters to Continue
The DOL response first confirms its position that the 45-day letter has been a valuable tool in ascertaining whether employers are still interested in pursuing their labor certification cases. Based upon what the DOL considers to be success with the 45-day letters in reducing the backlog, they intend to continue utilizing the system.
Recognition of Problem
The DOL acknowledges that, in the course of handling tens of thousands of letters, there have been situations in which the 45-day letters were not received by the attorney or company, through no fault of that attorney or company. The DOL admits that the closing of these cases "may not" have been warranted.
Solution and Procedure
In those cases where a 45-day letter is not received, the LC case can be reopened if the DOL is notified within 30 days of receipt of the case-closure letter. The notification must state that the 45-day letter was not received and that the employer wishes to continue processing.
Other Situations
The DOL simply states that other requests for reopening will be addressed on a case-by-case basis. They indicate that they will communicate with AILF regarding other circumstances that might justify case reopening.
CONCLUSION
The Murthy Law Firm has long supported AILF and its mission. Attorney Murthy currently serves on AILF's Board of Trustees. We appreciate the efforts of that nonprofit organization in this matter, resulting in a partial resolution of the incorrect closure of LC cases. The DOL response is a good start toward fixing one problem with the BPCs that has been faced by many employers and employees. It has been extremely difficult for individuals and employers to wait several years for a decision, only to have the case closed improperly. We note that the DOL deadline of 30 days to respond to the closure letter is rather short, and, in all fairness, that it should have been at least the same 45-day period permitted to respond to a continuation letter. There needs to be an efficient way for the DOL to reopen cases that have been pending for years in many instances, which were closed due to DOL's own error. We hope that the DOL will continue to consider a simple, straightforward resolution for cases that were closed despite the employers' having responded properly.
Copyright © 2006, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved
From murthy.com
1. Labor Certifications Closed in Error : DOL Responds
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a letter on June 1, 2006 regarding backlog processing center (BPC) labor certifications (LCs) that were closed in error. The letter is in response to a final demand for action, under threat of a lawsuit, from the American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF). AILF threatened to file a lawsuit against the DOL unless there was a policy change.
AILF raised several problems that need to be corrected by the DOL. Among these is the fact that the BPC has closed LCs for failure to respond to the DOL's 45-day letter when the employers and/or attorneys in these cases never received the 45-day letter. Another problem cited by AILF is in cases where the BPC issued the 45-day letters and the employers filed their responses timely, but the DOL incorrectly closed the cases stating that there was a failure to respond. This was caused by various mail and data processing backlogs that prevented the responses from being entered into the system in a timely fashion. The result was that the cases were denied for failure to respond, notwithstanding their proper responses. The DOL letter addresses the first scenario, in which 45-day letters were not received, but does not address the latter situation.
DOL RESPONSE
45-day Letters to Continue
The DOL response first confirms its position that the 45-day letter has been a valuable tool in ascertaining whether employers are still interested in pursuing their labor certification cases. Based upon what the DOL considers to be success with the 45-day letters in reducing the backlog, they intend to continue utilizing the system.
Recognition of Problem
The DOL acknowledges that, in the course of handling tens of thousands of letters, there have been situations in which the 45-day letters were not received by the attorney or company, through no fault of that attorney or company. The DOL admits that the closing of these cases "may not" have been warranted.
Solution and Procedure
In those cases where a 45-day letter is not received, the LC case can be reopened if the DOL is notified within 30 days of receipt of the case-closure letter. The notification must state that the 45-day letter was not received and that the employer wishes to continue processing.
Other Situations
The DOL simply states that other requests for reopening will be addressed on a case-by-case basis. They indicate that they will communicate with AILF regarding other circumstances that might justify case reopening.
CONCLUSION
The Murthy Law Firm has long supported AILF and its mission. Attorney Murthy currently serves on AILF's Board of Trustees. We appreciate the efforts of that nonprofit organization in this matter, resulting in a partial resolution of the incorrect closure of LC cases. The DOL response is a good start toward fixing one problem with the BPCs that has been faced by many employers and employees. It has been extremely difficult for individuals and employers to wait several years for a decision, only to have the case closed improperly. We note that the DOL deadline of 30 days to respond to the closure letter is rather short, and, in all fairness, that it should have been at least the same 45-day period permitted to respond to a continuation letter. There needs to be an efficient way for the DOL to reopen cases that have been pending for years in many instances, which were closed due to DOL's own error. We hope that the DOL will continue to consider a simple, straightforward resolution for cases that were closed despite the employers' having responded properly.
Copyright © 2006, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved
This is great but what about the cases who replied 45 days letter more 16 months before and still waiting for approval. the entire system is -----. I replied 45 days letter on Feb11,2005.
VA/RIR/EB3
PDFeb,2002
RD Aug,2003
I spoke to someone in DOL and he said that they cannot do anything. This is so frustrating
VA/RIR/EB3
PDFeb,2002
RD Aug,2003
I spoke to someone in DOL and he said that they cannot do anything. This is so frustrating
Approved
I got a call from my lawyer that my labor was approved.
Thank you very much for all the information in this forum and wish
everyone get out of here soon.
Here is my information:
STATE: MD RIR EB3
PD: 12/12/2002
RD: I do not know.
ETA: P-05137-*****
45 Letter received: 09/29/2005
45 Letter replied: 10/01/2005
Labor approval notified June 12, 2006
I got a call from my lawyer that my labor was approved.
Thank you very much for all the information in this forum and wish
everyone get out of here soon.
Here is my information:
STATE: MD RIR EB3
PD: 12/12/2002
RD: I do not know.
ETA: P-05137-*****
45 Letter received: 09/29/2005
45 Letter replied: 10/01/2005
Labor approval notified June 12, 2006
khogaye said:
Exactly my thoughts. They have to create a big deal about everything except approving the LCs. There are people from 2001 waiting for approval, they deserve to get the approval first.
If the are looking at the case to open it then the case is right there in front of their eyes, just look at it and make a decision, why do they have to open the case and then come back to it for making the decision. It's not like they are follow FIFO anyways. Just approve the darn LCs.