Retrogression: Doing the MATH- I-485 EB backlog estimates

Yup,
Based on this the prognosis doesnt look good. She may have received the news from AILA etc where DOS would only report to lawyers and not general public.

Canada is calling


blondhenge said:
Murthy just posted this on her weekly update today (the link is: http://www.murthy.com/bulletin.html )

High Demand in EB3 Expected to Continue

The DOS states that cutoff date movement will slow or stop when the dates reach the point where there is a high level of demand. This has happened in the employment-based, third preference category (EB3). The DOS states that demand for immigrant visa numbers during the month of March 2006 was expected to exceed the total for the previous three months. The EB3 dates continue to be in the span when many cases were filed, trying to meet the April 30, 2001 deadline under the LIFE Act / 245(i), to take advantage of certain provisions for those who had no legal status in the U.S.

Is anybody aware of when the DOS put out this 'update'? There was nothing like that mentioned in the recent visa bulletin.
Click to expand...
 
Please NOTE ..

blondhenge said:
Murthy just posted this on her weekly update today (the link is: http://www.murthy.com/bulletin.html )

High Demand in EB3 Expected to Continue

The DOS states that cutoff date movement will slow or stop when the dates reach the point where there is a high level of demand. This has happened in the employment-based, third preference category (EB3). The DOS states that demand for immigrant visa numbers during the month of March 2006 was expected to exceed the total for the previous three months. The EB3 dates continue to be in the span when many cases were filed, trying to meet the April 30, 2001 deadline under the LIFE Act / 245(i), to take advantage of certain provisions for those who had no legal status in the U.S.

Is anybody aware of when the DOS put out this 'update'? There was nothing like that mentioned in the recent visa bulletin.
Click to expand...

Guys and Gals,

Please note that the DOS has stated that the demand is "EXPECTED" to be large. Again they have not said that the demand is huge. They are just expecting it to be huge. Everyone is expecting it to be huge. What will determine our fate is whether their expectation matches reality. If they see a lot of cases in the next 2 months then the dates will stall here till Sept 2006. If they do not then they will move the dates come July because they will run the risk of wasting visa numbers.

regards,

saras76
 
What is the risk for CIS if visa numbers are wasted?

saras76 said:
Guys and Gals,

If they see a lot of cases in the next 2 months then the dates will stall here till Sept 2006. If they do not then they will move the dates come July because they will run the risk of wasting visa numbers.

regards,

saras76
Click to expand...
Do CIS or DOS really care about visa numbers been wasted? Looking at the lip service DOS paid about visa numbers wastage couple of months ago, we all expected them to move the priority dates faster. But that did not happen.
I firmly believe that retrogression is a scam created by CIS & DOS :mad:
But when I look at the way they are moving the PD for EB3 India very cautiously, I wonder whether they really have a basis for retro :confused:
 
The "expected demand" is just CIS jargon for "We got our a$$ loaded with too much work and we need you people to stop filing for a couple of years".
This risk of wasting visa numbers is not believable because if they truly are concerned about lost visa numbers, they would have made the initiative to flexibly move unused numbers to other high-demand categories.

saras76 said:
Guys and Gals,

Please note that the DOS has stated that the demand is "EXPECTED" to be large. Again they have not said that the demand is huge. They are just expecting it to be huge. Everyone is expecting it to be huge. What will determine our fate is whether their expectation matches reality. If they see a lot of cases in the next 2 months then the dates will stall here till Sept 2006. If they do not then they will move the dates come July because they will run the risk of wasting visa numbers.

regards,

saras76
Click to expand...
 
I would like to agree saras...

I, along with everyone else, hope that the 'expected' is the key word in the statement. However, per Murthy: http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dospre.html , these comments were made by DOS at the end of March, prior to the release of the latest visa bulletin. I have a March02 priority date and really had my fingers crossed that the dates might advance before the end of this fiscal year. However, I believe these comments have sealed my fate for now anyway.



saras76 said:
Guys and Gals,

Please note that the DOS has stated that the demand is "EXPECTED" to be large. Again they have not said that the demand is huge. They are just expecting it to be huge. Everyone is expecting it to be huge. What will determine our fate is whether their expectation matches reality. If they see a lot of cases in the next 2 months then the dates will stall here till Sept 2006. If they do not then they will move the dates come July because they will run the risk of wasting visa numbers.

regards,

saras76
Click to expand...
 
And this is where I wonder why were the 245i people ever deserved to be lumped into the EB3 category in the first place. What is the rationale? Was it ever established that all of the 245i applicants are people with specialised skills and at least a college degree?

blondhenge said:
Murthy just posted this on her weekly update today (the link is: http://www.murthy.com/bulletin.html )

High Demand in EB3 Expected to Continue

The DOS states that cutoff date movement will slow or stop when the dates reach the point where there is a high level of demand. This has happened in the employment-based, third preference category (EB3). The DOS states that demand for immigrant visa numbers during the month of March 2006 was expected to exceed the total for the previous three months. The EB3 dates continue to be in the span when many cases were filed, trying to meet the April 30, 2001 deadline under the LIFE Act / 245(i), to take advantage of certain provisions for those who had no legal status in the U.S.

Is anybody aware of when the DOS put out this 'update'? There was nothing like that mentioned in the recent visa bulletin.
Click to expand...
 
Agreed ..

ufo2002 said:
The "expected demand" is just CIS jargon for "We got our a$$ loaded with too much work and we need you people to stop filing for a couple of years".
This risk of wasting visa numbers is not believable because if they truly are concerned about lost visa numbers, they would have made the initiative to flexibly move unused numbers to other high-demand categories.
Click to expand...

Dallas03096 and ufo2002,

I totally agree with the two of you. I never bought into all the false reasons being given to us regarding the continuation of extreme retrogression. The most plausible reason is that they are rehauling the whole system (please read my posting in this thread a few days ago). They may spend this whole fiscal year in retro so that they can start afresh in fiscal year 2007. Retrogression is based on the following DOS and USCIS agenda -

1. Clean house by approving really old cases.

2. Move to ban Labor Sub.

3. Implement Bi-specialization.

4. Clear the backlog of older labors before PERM hits.

None of the above can be achieved if PDs were current or in 2002. They would have way to much work coming in and they wouldn't be able to implement any of the above.

Lets be realistic here. The DOS can release any sort of statitics to justify this retro. No one is going to check up on them. They can twist the facts and present them in such a way that the current situation keeps looking worse every month whereas in reality the situation might not be to bad. We would be naive to believe everything coming out of these agencies or from some stupid lawyers website. These are the same people that predicted that most categories would become current in Oct 05. Look what happened ....

I have pretty much given up on this fiscal year. I don't think anything is going to change for EB3s till Oct 06. What happens from there on is anyones guess ..

regards,

saras76
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Please do not believe Murthy web site postings. As far I know and observed from past, all her predictions went wrong. Hope for best in coming months.
 
Yes. DO NOT BELIEVE murthy.com. I never trust her. Hope for the best and somethis better will happen when senet and house shall start negotiate om immigration bills.
 
There might still be some hope

Assuming that DOS does has some real numbers on the visa demand, giving the fact that the "prediction" was released late March, the situation might not be as bad as it looks.

DOS only says the demand may exceed the total of three previous months. The EB3 world moved accross April 30th starting from March. Based on the way recently USCIS works, they would grab the visa number right away when it becomes available. If that is true, that means all that have been sitting there waiting for EB3 visa number (world category) should have pretty much showed up by he end of March, which according to DOS's estimate is about the total of three previous months.

Hopefully the demand will drop in April and have an impact on May's visa data. However, if BEC starting to pumping approval out then it's hopeless.


blondhenge said:
I, along with everyone else, hope that the 'expected' is the key word in the statement. However, per Murthy: http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dospre.html , these comments were made by DOS at the end of March, prior to the release of the latest visa bulletin. I have a March02 priority date and really had my fingers crossed that the dates might advance before the end of this fiscal year. However, I believe these comments have sealed my fate for now anyway.
Click to expand...
 
No mathematical basis

Guys and Gals

All calculations indicate there is no mathematical basis for RETROGRESSION beyond 7-8 months. Having over 3 to 5 years of retrogression is just USCIS stupidity.

Re: 245 (i) cases, let's not forget the head of USCIS is a HISPANIC origin person. Don't you think, he has a "personal" interest in clearing 245 (i) cases FAST ???

BECs have "pumped" out an average of 9000 cases per month and USCIS has processed an average of 20195 EB cases per month in FY 2005. What makes everyone think, BECs will pumpt out more than what they have been doing till now? Has Congress increased budget for DOL this year? Has DOL hired more people? Has DOL implemented new systems/ processes? What has changed between last year and now for BECs to churn out "more" numbers?

I think, there is something we do not know why USCIS is behaving this way.

Regards
GCStrat :)
 
FoIA

Can we file any FoIA with USCIS and ask for relevant numbers. Typical questions could be
How many 245(i) cases were filed ?
Under what category (EB or FB) ?
What is USCIS distribution of visa numbers amongst countries etc ???

Is this within the right of citizens to request ?
 
gcstrat said:
Guys and Gals

All calculations indicate there is no mathematical basis for RETROGRESSION beyond 7-8 months. Having over 3 to 5 years of retrogression is just USCIS stupidity.

Re: 245 (i) cases, let's not forget the head of USCIS is a HISPANIC origin person. Don't you think, he has a "personal" interest in clearing 245 (i) cases FAST ???

BECs have "pumped" out an average of 9000 cases per month and USCIS has processed an average of 20195 EB cases per month in FY 2005. What makes everyone think, BECs will pumpt out more than what they have been doing till now? Has Congress increased budget for DOL this year? Has DOL hired more people? Has DOL implemented new systems/ processes? What has changed between last year and now for BECs to churn out "more" numbers?

I think, there is something we do not know why USCIS is behaving this way.

Regards
GCStrat :)
Click to expand...

GCStrat,

I haven't looked over your spreadsheet at all (esp the assumptions that you make to get EB only I-485) but the conclusions are unsurprising.

One more thing to consider about the low flow coming from BECs to USCIS: first off the BECs got the first set of applications in Dec 2004 -- so it has already been at least 15 months, so only 7200 completed per month. Also, the certification rate is pretty low only 50,000 of the 108000 completed, a 46% rate. So only about 3333 cases going from BEC to USCIS per month.

best,
Berkeleybee
 
AGC4ME...i dont think this can be considere FOIA....since they will say this is under process and they have already published data about past process...
 
devoid of any logic

Why would USCIS waste visa numbers for this fiscal just to set their house in order? The early expiry of visa numbers last year didn't look good on them. I am not sure if retrogressing for sake of cleanup and there by wasting visa numbers would look impressive. Let's hope they see reason soon. As someone discussed is there a way for us to ask USCIS the number of pending applications with PD < March 2001? If that number is few and far between then we have grounds for appeal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Already tried

PHSESAaug said:
Why would USCIS waste visa numbers for this fiscal just to set their house in order? The early expiry of visa numbers last year didn't look good on them. I am not sure if retrogressing for sake of cleanup and there by wasting visa numbers would look impressive. Let's hope they see reason soon. As someone discussed is there a way for us to ask USCIS the number of pending applications with PD < March 2001? If that number is few and far between then we have grounds for appeal.
Click to expand...

PHSESAaug,

The logical thing would be to ask them for an explanation but unfortunately people have tried and gotten no where. I belive one of the members of this forum wrote a letter to the Ombudsman requesting him to ask the USCIS about the actual number of pending EB3 cases from 2001 and before. He got a reply stating that the Ombudsman office only deals with problem cases and does not have the right to ask the USCIS to furnish any stats. So there you have it ..

Bottom line, the DOS and USCIS can do anything they want. They cannot be questioned. If someone does try, they have ready answers to divert the inquiries. We are at their mercy ..

regards,

saras76
 
More messages to be sent to Ombudsman

PHSESAaug said:
Why would USCIS waste visa numbers for this fiscal just to set their house in order? The early expiry of visa numbers last year didn't look good on them. I am not sure if retrogressing for sake of cleanup and there by wasting visa numbers would look impressive. Let's hope they see reason soon. As someone discussed is there a way for us to ask USCIS the number of pending applications with PD < March 2001? If that number is few and far between then we have grounds for appeal.
Click to expand...

Here is what I tried earlier by writing to CIS Ombudsman:
http://boards.immigration.com/showthread.php?p=1388601#post1388601

May be more people should send similar mails to CIS Ombudsman to send a wake-up call to USCIS to ensure EB3 visa numbers do not go wasted this year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top