San Francisco Regional DOL Tracker - Old (Archived on 09/23/2004)
- Thread starter gp111
- Start date
- Status
Is San Francisco a place outside earth?
What is this?
http://www.ows.doleta.gov/foreign/times.asp
The "Processing Time" (May be we should not call it so 'coz when we say processing it implies progression of time as well) has gone back again to MAY 2002.
I understand them handling backlogs and remand cases, but it sounds ridiculous when a Government Agency is actually reporting "progress" in the reverse direction.
Or please tell me that it is a typo or I read it wrong. I will happily live as a person with a reading disorder.
Thanks.
What is this?
http://www.ows.doleta.gov/foreign/times.asp
The "Processing Time" (May be we should not call it so 'coz when we say processing it implies progression of time as well) has gone back again to MAY 2002.
I understand them handling backlogs and remand cases, but it sounds ridiculous when a Government Agency is actually reporting "progress" in the reverse direction.
Or please tell me that it is a typo or I read it wrong. I will happily live as a person with a reading disorder.
Thanks.
Remand case
Dear all,
My labor case priority date at DOL of October 2002 was
auto Remanded on July 19, 2003. This is what the AVM record showed in November 2003. I heard a lot of guys on this forum say their case moved back to DOL after auto remand. My application had BS +1 year experience. Last week I checked on AVM and the messgae I heard was "Recieved on October 2, 2003 and remanded to state on october 20, 2003".
Can anyone please enlighten me whats going on here. How do you know if your case was moved back to DOL after remand. Is there anyone who has a similar situation?
Hope we all get out of this hell soon. No one deserves this kind of trauma in seeking a labor certificate approval
Dear all,
My labor case priority date at DOL of October 2002 was
auto Remanded on July 19, 2003. This is what the AVM record showed in November 2003. I heard a lot of guys on this forum say their case moved back to DOL after auto remand. My application had BS +1 year experience. Last week I checked on AVM and the messgae I heard was "Recieved on October 2, 2003 and remanded to state on october 20, 2003".
Can anyone please enlighten me whats going on here. How do you know if your case was moved back to DOL after remand. Is there anyone who has a similar situation?
Hope we all get out of this hell soon. No one deserves this kind of trauma in seeking a labor certificate approval
Not2Happy
If your case is moved back to DOL after a remand then the AVM would say the case is received in xxx date with a DOT Code xxx and then it will say that your case has been returned after a remand and the status was posted on xxx date.
Looks like in your case it was autoremanded on July 19 2003 but what I dont understand is why it says it is remanded on OCt 20 ' 2003.
Make sure this is not a employer requested remand or some thing like that. If it is Auto-Remand it should come back to DOL provided your LC req is not BS+0 years.
If your case is moved back to DOL after a remand then the AVM would say the case is received in xxx date with a DOT Code xxx and then it will say that your case has been returned after a remand and the status was posted on xxx date.
Looks like in your case it was autoremanded on July 19 2003 but what I dont understand is why it says it is remanded on OCt 20 ' 2003.
Make sure this is not a employer requested remand or some thing like that. If it is Auto-Remand it should come back to DOL provided your LC req is not BS+0 years.
Wishes&Luck
Registered Users (C)
Hi All,
My case was applied with the BS + 2yrs experience. As I understand the Carlson's memo requires BS+3 yrs exp.
Has anyone heard of cases with BS+ 2 yrs exp getting cleared?
Also if one's case goes into the appeal state - how long does it take for the appeal to get approved?
And if the case is pending in appeal state can we extend H1b?
Any help will be greatly appreciated.
thanks
My case was applied with the BS + 2yrs experience. As I understand the Carlson's memo requires BS+3 yrs exp.
Has anyone heard of cases with BS+ 2 yrs exp getting cleared?
Also if one's case goes into the appeal state - how long does it take for the appeal to get approved?
And if the case is pending in appeal state can we extend H1b?
Any help will be greatly appreciated.
thanks
Letter to Carlson - employer-remanded cases
From
xxxx
To
William L. Carlson, Ph.D.,
Chief, Division of Foreign Labor Certifications,
U.S. Department of Labor,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room C-4318,
Washington, DC 20210.
Dear Sir,
Re: Employer-remanded case with San Francisco DOL – Case # xxxx
This bears reference to your memo dated 20th November, 2003 advising regional DOL offices to follow new guidelines in granting permanent Alien Labor Certifications. I would like to congratulate you on taking this historic and bold first step towards the backlog reduction at DOL offices. Your guidance will go a long way in establishing a fair process for labor certification in this country and at the same time go a long way in streamlining the hugely backlogged DOL regional offices throughout the country.
I work for XXXX Company and have been an employee of the company since xxxxx. My company applied for a permanent Alien Labor certification (ALC) on my behalf on xxxxx under the RIR category. At the time of applying for ALC under RIR, my company had followed the guidelines prevalent at that time and had established a pattern of recruitment for the 6-months prior to filing, as required under the RIR process. After having been wetted by the state EDD and by the regional DOL for the last xxxx years, the case was forwarded to my employer in xxxxx, after a lapse of nearly xxx years xx months, with the option of either re-advertising for the open position or the option of requesting the case be returned to EDD. The delay in the processing of RIR petitions and the changed business conditions left my employer with no-choice but to request remand of the case back to EDD for supervised recruitment, under non-RIR category. My company, at that time, did not have the benefit of your historical November memorandum.
I understand that as a direct result of your memorandum, the regional DOL office in San Francisco has recalled all the auto-remanded cases from EDD, that meet the criteria set forth by you and has been processing them as RIR cases, under the guidelines presented by you. However, those cases which were remanded to EDD by the employer are not being recalled.
My case, which otherwise clearly falls under the scope of your memorandum, continues to remain in the pipeline at EDD after nearly xxx years of filing under RIR category. It is very likely that there are large numbers of such employer-remanded cases are pending at EDD, which will continue to clog the system and cause further delay in processing of regular NON-RIR labor certification. My case also, which is otherwise certifiable as per your memo, is also contributing towards this end. It will ultimately result in costing additional dollars of the tax payers money and will be strain on the already thinly stretched DOL budget. Such a situation can clearly be avoided, with your leadership and guidance.
You could make an addendum to your November memo to include the category of employer-remanded cases, to be considered as RIR cases. This will go a long way in helping alleviate these backlogs and also help you manage the scarce monetary resources allocated to DOL. Moreover, you will be indirectly helping me and my family leads a better life and contribute better to the society that I live in. It will also help me in performing better in my job and motivate me towards contributing my best towards the robust growth of the US economy.
I sincerely request you instruct San Francisco DOL to recall my employer-remanded case back from EDD and give it the adequate consideration, as outlined in your November memorandum.
In the interest of improving efficiency of the Alien Labor certification process, in the interest of keeping the cost of Alien Labor certification at a reasonably low level and in the interests of establishing fairness in the system, I request you consider instructing all the regional offices of DOL to recall all employer-remanded cases back from EDD and subject them to your November guideline.
Hope that you will consider my request in a favorable manner. If you require further information, I can be reached on xxxxx.
Yours sincerely,
(XXXX)
From
xxxx
To
William L. Carlson, Ph.D.,
Chief, Division of Foreign Labor Certifications,
U.S. Department of Labor,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room C-4318,
Washington, DC 20210.
Dear Sir,
Re: Employer-remanded case with San Francisco DOL – Case # xxxx
This bears reference to your memo dated 20th November, 2003 advising regional DOL offices to follow new guidelines in granting permanent Alien Labor Certifications. I would like to congratulate you on taking this historic and bold first step towards the backlog reduction at DOL offices. Your guidance will go a long way in establishing a fair process for labor certification in this country and at the same time go a long way in streamlining the hugely backlogged DOL regional offices throughout the country.
I work for XXXX Company and have been an employee of the company since xxxxx. My company applied for a permanent Alien Labor certification (ALC) on my behalf on xxxxx under the RIR category. At the time of applying for ALC under RIR, my company had followed the guidelines prevalent at that time and had established a pattern of recruitment for the 6-months prior to filing, as required under the RIR process. After having been wetted by the state EDD and by the regional DOL for the last xxxx years, the case was forwarded to my employer in xxxxx, after a lapse of nearly xxx years xx months, with the option of either re-advertising for the open position or the option of requesting the case be returned to EDD. The delay in the processing of RIR petitions and the changed business conditions left my employer with no-choice but to request remand of the case back to EDD for supervised recruitment, under non-RIR category. My company, at that time, did not have the benefit of your historical November memorandum.
I understand that as a direct result of your memorandum, the regional DOL office in San Francisco has recalled all the auto-remanded cases from EDD, that meet the criteria set forth by you and has been processing them as RIR cases, under the guidelines presented by you. However, those cases which were remanded to EDD by the employer are not being recalled.
My case, which otherwise clearly falls under the scope of your memorandum, continues to remain in the pipeline at EDD after nearly xxx years of filing under RIR category. It is very likely that there are large numbers of such employer-remanded cases are pending at EDD, which will continue to clog the system and cause further delay in processing of regular NON-RIR labor certification. My case also, which is otherwise certifiable as per your memo, is also contributing towards this end. It will ultimately result in costing additional dollars of the tax payers money and will be strain on the already thinly stretched DOL budget. Such a situation can clearly be avoided, with your leadership and guidance.
You could make an addendum to your November memo to include the category of employer-remanded cases, to be considered as RIR cases. This will go a long way in helping alleviate these backlogs and also help you manage the scarce monetary resources allocated to DOL. Moreover, you will be indirectly helping me and my family leads a better life and contribute better to the society that I live in. It will also help me in performing better in my job and motivate me towards contributing my best towards the robust growth of the US economy.
I sincerely request you instruct San Francisco DOL to recall my employer-remanded case back from EDD and give it the adequate consideration, as outlined in your November memorandum.
In the interest of improving efficiency of the Alien Labor certification process, in the interest of keeping the cost of Alien Labor certification at a reasonably low level and in the interests of establishing fairness in the system, I request you consider instructing all the regional offices of DOL to recall all employer-remanded cases back from EDD and subject them to your November guideline.
Hope that you will consider my request in a favorable manner. If you require further information, I can be reached on xxxxx.
Yours sincerely,
(XXXX)
Employer-remanded cases
I have finally got out a draft of the letter to Carlson. For now, it is very verbose and requires more work to make it concise. I wanted to let you all know the current state the letter is in and hence this update. I have kept out the negative aspects of the LC process that we are going through. Of course, everybody is aware to the negative aspects and it an accepted fact in the American capitalism. Stressing on the positive aspects, I hope, will ultimately help us achieve our goal. This letter further needs to be shortened to fit in one page, including the To, From address and signature. Please let the forum know about the modifications needed or you can PM me with your suggestions.
I would recommend that each of you who is in this employer-remanded category, modify this draft according to your individual situation and send it to Carlson, individually. Let us not show any kind of “revolutionary movement” by sending the copy of the same letter to Carlson. In fact, legally speaking, we are not even entitled to write such a letter, since the Labor Certification belongs to the Company and we are not legally a part of it. I would urge you to advertise this link on your company’s internal newsgroups/mailing lists and to your friends. The more the people who participate in this, the better will be the result. Another important aspect, when sending your letter to Carlson, clearly mark on the envelope “To be opened by Mr. Carlson only”. This will prevent the letter from being opened at the mail room and being discarded.
I was thinking of starting a new thread on this aspect, but decided against doing so, since I felt everybody here can get some hope for this post. So those guys who are still not yet in the employer-remanded category or are yet to reach the DOL processing date, please bear with us and keep your spirits high. If the general consensus is to start a new thread, we can do so.
I have finally got out a draft of the letter to Carlson. For now, it is very verbose and requires more work to make it concise. I wanted to let you all know the current state the letter is in and hence this update. I have kept out the negative aspects of the LC process that we are going through. Of course, everybody is aware to the negative aspects and it an accepted fact in the American capitalism. Stressing on the positive aspects, I hope, will ultimately help us achieve our goal. This letter further needs to be shortened to fit in one page, including the To, From address and signature. Please let the forum know about the modifications needed or you can PM me with your suggestions.
I would recommend that each of you who is in this employer-remanded category, modify this draft according to your individual situation and send it to Carlson, individually. Let us not show any kind of “revolutionary movement” by sending the copy of the same letter to Carlson. In fact, legally speaking, we are not even entitled to write such a letter, since the Labor Certification belongs to the Company and we are not legally a part of it. I would urge you to advertise this link on your company’s internal newsgroups/mailing lists and to your friends. The more the people who participate in this, the better will be the result. Another important aspect, when sending your letter to Carlson, clearly mark on the envelope “To be opened by Mr. Carlson only”. This will prevent the letter from being opened at the mail room and being discarded.
I was thinking of starting a new thread on this aspect, but decided against doing so, since I felt everybody here can get some hope for this post. So those guys who are still not yet in the employer-remanded category or are yet to reach the DOL processing date, please bear with us and keep your spirits high. If the general consensus is to start a new thread, we can do so.
LC Approved
Atlast the AVM is playing the sweet tunes for me!.
After close to 2-1/2 years it is certified.
My details
Dot: 999-151-051
PD: Oct 2001
RD at DOL: Oct 2 / 2002
auto - Remanded : July 14 /2003
Returned back to DOL: Jan 10/2004
Certified: Feb 03/2004
All the best for the guys waiting.
Atlast the AVM is playing the sweet tunes for me!.
After close to 2-1/2 years it is certified.
My details
Dot: 999-151-051
PD: Oct 2001
RD at DOL: Oct 2 / 2002
auto - Remanded : July 14 /2003
Returned back to DOL: Jan 10/2004
Certified: Feb 03/2004
All the best for the guys waiting.
niceto5785
Registered Users (C)
congratulations titan
congratulations titan. can you tell us what is your job requirement? BS/MS + number of years of experience.
congratulations titan. can you tell us what is your job requirement? BS/MS + number of years of experience.
Wishes&Luck
Registered Users (C)
Titan01
Congrats!!! Mine is also submitted with same requirement hope that it will get approved as well.
Babaloo
thanks for doing this for us.
Hang in there everybody.
Good luck
Congrats!!! Mine is also submitted with same requirement hope that it will get approved as well.
Babaloo
thanks for doing this for us.
Hang in there everybody.
Good luck
bhadrinath
Registered Users (C)
Re: Employer-remanded cases
Hi Babaloo,
Thanx for getting the Draft letter ready...Fantastic job. I
am sure me and many others on this list will be praising
you for this.
I just have a few comments regarding the contents -
(a)Should we be mentioning our company's name
in the letter ? In my opinion lets avoid doing that...
(b) I think we should shorten the letter length by reducing
atleast 2 para's, so that we keep the readers interest on.
What do you think ?
-Bhadri
Hi Babaloo,
Thanx for getting the Draft letter ready...Fantastic job. I
am sure me and many others on this list will be praising
you for this.
I just have a few comments regarding the contents -
(a)Should we be mentioning our company's name
in the letter ? In my opinion lets avoid doing that...
(b) I think we should shorten the letter length by reducing
atleast 2 para's, so that we keep the readers interest on.
What do you think ?
-Bhadri
- Status