MAGIC TEXT AND EMAIL! FINALLY

[Belle]

Occam's Razor. I suspect you have heard the term.

The simpler explanation is the more likely one.

DOS has told AILA that there are no more visa numbers available for EB2-I/C. They for sure know this better than you.

No, it is not the most likely one. That's the one you want to believe because it fits into your theory, which you adamantly defend despite the evidence (aka - cognitive bias). And yes, I know you will justify it to the very end, because... well, because all of the behavioural research says so.

However, the most likely explanation is that a visa number was reserved for somebody else, possibly in a different category, but was not used for some reason (late denial?), and once it became available again, it was used for the squeaky wheel, since technically, his date is current and it is perfectly within the USCIS power to give him a visa number. It is not likely to happen, of course, but my approach is that in some cases it does pays to be the squeaky wheel.

[tusharvk]

I see a couple of approvals in may on ********. They are dec or jan filers though.

it is not clear when the visas were requested for them either.

[JoeF]

Should I stoop to your level and suggest that you devulge your USCIS sources since you obviously know exactly how this hapenned?... Neah, that's just meaningless.

Sigh.

You still don't get it, do you?

DOS has informed AILA that there are no visa numbers available for EB2-I/C anymore. Get that into your head.

So, if there is an approval, it follows by simple high-school logic that the examiner must have requested and gotten a visa number before the numbers ran out.

Geez. What is up with you? You used to be knowledgeable. Right now, you display none of that.

To reiterate: There are no visa numbers available for EB2-I/C anymore.

Do I need to repeat it?: There are no visa numbers available for EB2-I/C anymore.

Do you need it once more? There are no visa numbers available for EB2-I/C anymore.

[JoeF]

Belle, what part of "DOS has informed AILA that there are no more visa numbers available for EB2-I/C" don't you understand?

Do you really think that AILA and all the lawyers who reported this are all part of a huge conspiracy???

That's black-helicopter level.

Again, the bottom line is that there are no more visa numbers available for EB2-I/C.

If there are a few approvals in these categories, then simple high-school level logic implies that these cases must have gotten visa numbers before the DOS announcement. It is that simple.

Geez. I suggest you stop the conspiracy theory BS.

[tusharvk]

The latest VB was released and recanted. Anyway, looking at the removed bulletin advisory, there is mention that if EB2IC remained available, it would put pressure on EB availability on other categories. Why is that?

If they kept it available at a different PD, they would have to give EB numbers from other categories to EB2 I\C??

Excerpt from VB (released and recanted):

EB-2 China and India: Unavailable. (Despite the retrogression of the China and India EB-2 cut-off date to 08/15/2007, demand for numbers by applicants with priority dates earlier than that remained excessive. Such demand is primarily based on cases which had originally been filed with the USCIS for adjustment of status in the EB-3, and are now eligible to be upgraded to EB-2. The potential amount of such "upgrade" demand is not currently being reported, but it was evident that the continued availability of EB numbers for countries other than China dn India was being jeopardized. Therefore, it was necessary to make the China and India EB-2 "Unavailable" and it will remain so for the remainder of FY-2012. Numbers will once again be available China and India EB-2 cases beginning 10/01/2012 under the FY-2013 annual numerical limitations. Every effort will be made to return the China dn India EB-2 cut-off date to the 05/01/2010 date which had been reached in April 2012. USCIS has indicated that it will continue accepting China and India EB-2 I-485 filings during May 2012 based on the originally announced May cut-off date.)

[trackit]

JoeF and Belle,

I understand you have some disagreements but the conversations seem to be heading towards a path where they are becoming disagreeable - there's a difference as you can see.

I implore you both to take it down a notch and keep it less personal as it is turning out to be a distraction.

I speak for a lot of us who post and read off these forums that we look up to your inputs, so it's OK to cite your points (even if they are different) let the people who are reading make a call as to what they want to make of it,

I expect and hope that you take this in the right spirit.

Many thanks,

[chakrakr]

I have a different question on this whole topic.

From what I understand (from Joef's post), it seems some officer in CIS requested for a Visa number before the RFE was issued or immediately after RFE received but definitely before a final decision was made.

Presumably , there are other such cases where a CIS officer requested a Visa number before they were able to make a final decision.

Now, if the officer eventually denies the 485 (which is technically possible) , what happens to the Visa number ? DOS has now made it very clear no visa numbers are available; the June bulletin even shows it as U . So, CIS cannot approve any 485 (for EB2 - I/C) starting June . Does that visa goes waste ?

[kalyan_ac]

Two most knowledgeable persons against each other.

[JoeF]

I have a different question on this whole topic.

From what I understand (from Joef's post), it seems some officer in CIS requested for a Visa number before the RFE was issued or immediately after RFE received but definitely before a final decision was made.

Presumably , there are other such cases where a CIS officer requested a Visa number before they were able to make a final decision.

Now, if the officer eventually denies the 485 (which is technically possible) , what happens to the Visa number ? DOS has now made it very clear no visa numbers are available; the June bulletin even shows it as U . So, CIS cannot approve any 485 (for EB2 - I/C) starting June . Does that visa goes waste ?

That's a good question.

I would expect them to give the number back to DOS. But I have no idea if that actually happens.

Another example of this requesting visa numbers quite some time in advance happens with Consular Processing. In CP, the rules are that the consulate has to request and get a visa number before they even schedule the interview. That means the consulate requests visa numbers 1-2 months before they issue an immigrant visa.

[JoeF]

I implore you both to take it down a notch and keep it less personal as it is turning out to be a distraction.

There is nothing personal from my side.

The fact is that visa numbers for EB2-I/C are not available since April 11. DOS informed AILA of that, and AILA members (lawyers) posted all that on their websites.

So, the point to understand for everybody is that there are no visa numbers for EB2-I/C available. Period.

Now, if somebody claims otherwise, regardless of who that is, that person would have to point to something official from DOS. Anything else is just delusionary rambling, black-helicopter style, or faked moon-landing-style. Again, it doesn't matter who makes that claim. It is put up or shut up.

At this point, they only official information we have is that there are no more visa numbers available for EB2-I/C, since April 11.

Now, based on that, if somebody gets an approval after that particular date, the only logical conclusion possible is that in such a case, the examiner had requested and gotten a visa number before the numbers ran out on April 11. We do know that they have to request a visa number before approval. We do not know when in the process they request visa numbers. Each examiner may have his own way of deciding when to request a visa number. It also may depend on the particular case, if it is a straightforward one, or needs an RFE, or if it gets reviewed by a supervisor. All these things can influence the processing flow.

That's really all there is to it.

Somehow implying from the fact of an approval after the numbers ran out that the numbers didn't run out is an invalid conclusion, not supported by the data available. That's what I have been pointing out. And I will continue to point out invalid conclusions that are not supported by the available data. Again, that has nothing to do with a particular person.

[JoeF]

The latest VB was released and recanted. Anyway, looking at the removed bulletin advisory, there is mention that if EB2IC remained available, it would put pressure on EB availability on other categories. Why is that?

As far as I understand, that has to do with the spillover rules.

[cap-gap]

That's the one you want to believe because it fits into your theory, which you adamantly defend despite the evidence (aka - cognitive bias). And yes, I know you will justify it to the very end, because... well, because all of the behavioural research says so.

well put..

I had a futile argument with the same person about the recession back in 07 or 08..his arguments was there is no recession because Bush has not declared it so..by the time both of them agreed economy was at the doorstep of depression..

[pramak9]

Very Interesting Approval on ******** yesterday. EB2 India, PD Nov 2009 (No RFE), Approval on May,10 2012.

Even all the theories would be thrown off balance here. Even if this case was assigned a visa number in the early statges, when PD's were May 1 2010, isnt it a point to approve a case only when PD is current?

So lets hope everything was ok with this case, wonder why they waited for so long to approve in May?

Since the PD's are not current to this case (make it Adjudicated) and should they have taken this visa number and allocate to a case with PD earlier than Aug 15 2007 as per current bulletin?

[JoeF]

well put..

I had a futile argument with the same person about the recession back in 07 or 08..his arguments was there is no recession because Bush has not declared it so..by the time both of them agreed economy was at the doorstep of depression..

LOL. Your recollection seems to be a bit shaky...

A Persident doesn't declare that...

There is a formal definition of the term "recession". Look it up. Negative growth for a certain number of successive quarters. That definition comes from economists, and is used in every country. As always, getting educated is a good thing ;)

[485girl]

I am not taking any side of this argument but we should never be afraid to ask or question issues that affect our lives. Through generations that have preceeded us in any part of the world we come from, change has only come with people questioning or standing up to what has not been working or is outrightly wrong.

Change will never come if we accept blindly this process that is clearly flawed. I applaud the forum for encouraging different viewpoints and where we all have a chance to discuss and voice our fears and opinions. It's true that we are working with half the picture of what we know but that shouldn't discourage us from voicing opinions just because we don't have 'facts from UCIS' to back them up.

Everyone can agree to disagree without forcing down an opinion or 'it's my way or the highway' approach. Each opinion is just that-an opinion :)

[tusharvk]

Very Interesting Approval on ******** yesterday. EB2 India, PD Nov 2009 (No RFE), Approval on May,10 2012.

Even all the theories would be thrown off balance here. Even if this case was assigned a visa number in the early statges, when PD's were May 1 2010, isnt it a point to approve a case only when PD is current?

So lets hope everything was ok with this case, wonder why they waited for so long to approve in May?

Since the PD's are not current to this case (make it Adjudicated) and should they have taken this visa number and allocate to a case with PD earlier than Aug 15 2007 as per current bulletin?

I do not see this approval right now. But it is not a reliable source. May be the user forgot to update.

If it is true, how can uscis approve an application when the pd is not even current for that person.

We need to understand clearly at what stage cis requests dos a nummber for an applicant. Can attorneys please comment?

[JoeF]

Very Interesting Approval on ******** yesterday. EB2 India, PD Nov 2009 (No RFE), Approval on May,10 2012.

Even all the theories would be thrown off balance here. Even if this case was assigned a visa number in the early statges, when PD's were May 1 2010, isnt it a point to approve a case only when PD is current?

Yes. Even if there is a number assigned, a case is not supposed to be approved if the PD isn't current.

Without knowing the details, it is hard to deduct what happened there. For example, was it approved before May, and the notice just sent out? Is it in the online system (the online system is unreliable, so I wouldn't necessarily trust that), etc. etc.

Or it could be an approval in error. There have been a few instances reported where they approved cases that were not current, and they may revoke that later.

[JoeF]

I do not see this approval right now. But it is not a reliable source. May be the user forgot to update.

If it is true, how can uscis approve an application when the pd is not even current for that person.

We need to understand clearly at what stage cis requests dos a nummber for an applicant. Can attorneys please comment?

A couple of years back, a former examiner posted about the usual way he processed applications. That was in some other forum. I recently came across that, but don't remember the link.

[pramak9]

Finally got our Green cards yesterday.

This forum helped me a lot understanding immigration rules and people have been great to the responses. This forum is on my favorites list now and hope to continue following it.

[trackit]

Congrats - HYD-09 - would you remind us of your category, country, PD and other particulars?

[pramak9]

@trackit

Thanks, Check my first post in this TOPIC.

[Belle]

I am not taking any side of this argument but we should never be afraid to ask or question issues that affect our lives. Through generations that have preceeded us in any part of the world we come from, change has only come with people questioning or standing up to what has not been working or is outrightly wrong.

Change will never come if we accept blindly this process that is clearly flawed. I applaud the forum for encouraging different viewpoints and where we all have a chance to discuss and voice our fears and opinions. It's true that we are working with half the picture of what we know but that shouldn't discourage us from voicing opinions just because we don't have 'facts from UCIS' to back them up.

Everyone can agree to disagree without forcing down an opinion or 'it's my way or the highway' approach. Each opinion is just that-an opinion :)

This is the biggest pile of flaming non-sensical goo I have ever seen. You must be a VP. If you are not, you will sure be one day.

[Belle]

Sigh.

You still don't get it, do you?

DOS has informed AILA that there are no visa numbers available for EB2-I/C anymore. Get that into your head.

So, if there is an approval, it follows by simple high-school logic that the examiner must have requested and gotten a visa number before the numbers ran out.

Geez. What is up with you? You used to be knowledgeable. Right now, you display none of that.

To reiterate: There are no visa numbers available for EB2-I/C anymore.

Do I need to repeat it?: There are no visa numbers available for EB2-I/C anymore.

Do you need it once more? There are no visa numbers available for EB2-I/C anymore.

And Joe went away "there are no visa numbers available for EB2-I/C anymore" under his nose as if trying very hard to convince himself...

I know, those pesky facts are cruel. They tend to mess up with your head.

[JoeF]

I know, those pesky facts are cruel. They tend to mess up with your head.

And your rather rambling posts have shown to the world that the facts seem to have messed up your head...

I hope you had some rest and feel better now.

[Ravi121]

JoeF and Belle, I think you two are strong pillars of this forum..please be on the same page and clear out your problems. I or I think other folks also don't like to see you two knowledgeable people to fight over the visa numbers and make groups.