Predicted Priority Dates for final quarter of FY2005

appan said:
Bapunagar,

But for getting immigrant visa ( green card) the pd should be current. Even it is consular or AOS the USIS /consular has to request the visa from the DOS.USually consulate will get the bulletin around 10 th of each month...
Click to expand...


I agree with Bapunagar. Those people that file their AOS petitions before January 1, 2005 were not affected by retrogression because the dates during that time were CURRENT. Please remember that the dates only rolled back last January 1, 2005. So even their PD's are not current now but because they have filed for AOS when the time the PD's for all EB visas were current
, they are not affected by retrogression.

The one that you have been telling because there is a retrogression now, one cannot file for AOS because their PD's are not current that is true but the one's that have filed for AOS before Jan. 1, 2005...they have no problem because at the time dates are "CURRENT".

One more thing, DOS has been claiming that the reason for the long backlog and retrogression is because there are so many cases going for AOS, USCIS eats alot of visas. So these cases going AOS that and have dates filed around 2004 are getting approved. I think what is happening now is not a mistake. The backlog is getting cleared and the July visa bulletin will show a big leap.

DALE
 
Wrong assumption and incorrect interpretation,
the PD must be current for an officer to adjudicate the approval for a 485 case and the same is good for a consular, the interview will be scheduled only if the PD is current and will be granted visa only if the PD is current
its black and white
you can apply for 485 before Jan1 2005 and get the EAD AP benefits
but it wont be approved without PD being current
now if a person gets it approved then he is one lucky SOB.

/S
 
r_sada is right and rest all wrong.

My PD is august 2004 and I have applied 485/140 in Dec 2004 when PDs were current.

USCIS will approve my 485 only when PD move to august 2004. Ofcurce this unjustice because they should approve my 485 because I have applied when PD were current. But this is not the case.


If they are approving 2004 cases that could be mistake are PD will move in July bulletine.
 
Baby_mde ,
I remember there was one case some time ago (User Name kishuIBM, if I remember correctly). Lots of people started discussing when he claimed that retrogression does not affect him inspite of being one from PIC countries and his Priority date after the cutoff date. I believe (again if i recollect correctly)It turned out later that he was EB2 and not EB3. I have posted a question to venkiks and also i see that you have asked him the same. Lets wait and see if he replies. It appears to me more of a mistake either on USCIS side or the misunderstanding on EB2-EB3 by venkiks.

baby_mde said:
r_sada is right and rest all wrong.
My PD is august 2004 and I have applied 485/140 in Dec 2004 when PDs were current.
USCIS will approve my 485 only when PD move to august 2004. Ofcurce this unjustice because they should approve my 485 because I have applied when PD were current. But this is not the case.
If they are approving 2004 cases that could be mistake are PD will move in July bulletine.
Click to expand...
 
babdy mde, He already replied that it is EB3.


#5 26th May 2005, 09:03 PM
venkiks
Registered User Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6

The category is EB3. Haven't received the approval letter yet. I just don't want to believe this until I get the letter in post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He is the only guy who got approved from eb3 retro... country it could be mistake becuase i am not seeing any other approvals. I mean why not many...
 
Appan, I have seen this before. May be PDs might move to August 2002 or more in July bulletine if it is not mistakenly approved.

I have also seen someone's PD is in 2004 and he got approved. Do you have nay idea about this?
 
On one side , combination of logic and realistic analysis which everybody had unwillingly started to believe/accept based on shusterman and murthy's comments that there are gloomy days ahead for retrogressed folks and on the other side these approvals.. Only the july bulletin can help understand this.. Lets hope for the best...


appan said:
this is the second case.These two cases approved after june 1st 05.

http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=177159
Click to expand...
 
I will be the most happiest persion if PDs move in july bulletine. My PD is August 2004. We came to US around 6 years back and we are stuck in retroo...
 
gceeker05 said:
On one side , combination of logic and realistic analysis which everybody had unwillingly started to believe/accept based on shusterman and murthy's comments that there are gloomy days ahead for retrogressed folks and on the other side these approvals.. Only the july bulletin can help understand this.. Lets hope for the best...
Click to expand...

We have to wait and see when the gloomy days start? JULY ,AUG or SEP?
 
Bapunagar....

See the last post .in the link you sent ... KISHUIMB belongs to EB2... so it is not a error :)

#33 26th April 2005, 03:58 PM
MA_Labor
Registered User Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 339

Please disregard this thread title

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please disregard this thread title. Kishuimb belongs to the EB2 category and not EB3.



See this case ... visa on hold below.. visa on hold



#16 5th April 2005, 10:01 PM
nyte_crawler
Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Burgh
Posts: 237

Lucky one.
Good luck
__________________
PD 06/12/02 / India
485 ND 06/30/03
1FP 08/13/04
LUD 12/20/04
11/17 --> RFE Issued on EVL and paystubs
03/16 --> Called USCIS
04/05 --> Received message "On Hold because visa is not available"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Appan:
You're right. I guess I had not followed this thread to the end. This leaves all the doubts behind and hope that Shusterman/Murty are all WRONG!! I hope CAN's case does not turn out to be anything other than EB3
 
Can1234 is EB3

Can1234 is EB3. He replied to me in the private message.

bapunagar said:
Appan:
You're right. I guess I had not followed this thread to the end. This leaves all the doubts behind and hope that Shusterman/Murty are all WRONG!! I hope CAN's case does not turn out to be anything other than EB3
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top