CIS OMB response


trackit

Recommended Posts

Allegedly, the USCIS knew about the numbers being depleted in the end of March, however, May bulletin, which was released in April did not show U. Since the USCIS knew that there were few numbers (otherwise, they would not have retroed the dates), they should have been more careful.

Again, Belle, USCIS does not publish the VB. It is DOS that does that. You should know that.

Link to comment

it is curious for CP.

People doing the CP would be eligible to get green card if their docs are in order, correct?

For CP, pretty much the same stuff apples. Consulates get visa numbers from DOS. They can't get any numbers anymore.

Secondly, how can the demand data be so much flawed? We got multiple reports on 485 demand data for eb2 in\chi. The demand prior to 2008 was so low.

Yes, the demand date prior to 2008 was low, so they moved the dates forward to generate more demand. And they got it... This should show up in the upcoming demand data reports.

Link to comment

The key is that the demand was so low.

Also, dos uses the demand data from cis to move the dates forward or backward, right?

So, the dates were moved forward to generate the demand. But why did the subsequent reports not show the increased demand?

now when the numbers have become depleted, they will all of a sudden show the demand is skyrocketed.

Till march 23, no indication that the dates are going to retrogress.

Link to comment

DOS published the bulletin using the data from the uscis and consulates. If the demand is too much, the cis can convey it and dos can make the dates U if they are indeed U.

And apparently, at the time DOS published the VB, there were still visa numbers available. Now, you can complain that CIS maybe didn't provide DOS with correct demand data. We don't know. But in any case, CIS does not publish the VB. Period. And Belle should be well aware of that. I have no idea why she wrote what she wrote...

Anyway, DOS doesn't change the VB mid-month. They did that once, in July 2007, and got a lot of heat over that.

Link to comment

DOS published the bulletin using the data from the uscis and consulates. If the demand is too much, the cis can convey it and dos can make the dates U if they are indeed U.

The "customers" of these agencies are a bunch of big cry-babies. The agencies are criticized by someone regardless of which way they go. Ultimately, there is a statutory limit to the number of visas which is determined by a complex formula. It is more prudent to hold back from marking a category as "unavailable" prematurely than the alternative of being accussed of or to actually be guilty of "wasting visas".

Link to comment

The "customers" of these agencies are a bunch of big cry-babies. The agencies are criticized by someone regardless of which way they go. Ultimately, there is a statutory limit to the number of visas which is determined by a complex formula. It is more prudent to hold back from marking a category as "unavailable" prematurely than the alternative of being accussed of or to actually be guilty of "wasting visas".

Let us not go to call people cry babies.

It is also possible for DOS to state that they are waiting for the demand data from uscis. Hence, they will delay the publication of the VB by a couple of days. Given they don ot have any visa 4/11 onwards for eb2in\chi, just make it U for the may bulletin itself.

Any regulation stating the VB can not be delayed till 4/11?

Link to comment

Sigh. What happened to the knowledgeable Belle? Did somebody hijack her account?

This is about visa numbers for EB2-I/C. Please don't play dumb...

Joe, thanks for making it personal.

You know it better than me - a visa number is a visa number. This guy's petition has been pending for over five years, and the USCIS could not adjudicate it while it was current for over six months? I think, he was every right to cry bloody murder. He case is outrageous enough to bring in attention, and the USCIS does not like when the light is shed into the darkest corners of their operations.

Link to comment

Joe, thanks for making it personal.

Huh? It wasn't me who posted BS...

There are no visa numbers for EB2-I/C anymore for this fiscal year. Period. End of story.

Nobody and nothing can change that. And no WOM, either.

Again: There are no visa numbers for EB2-I/C anymore for this fiscal year.

And once more: There are no visa numbers for EB2-I/C anymore for this fiscal year.

Now can we please put this topic to rest?

Link to comment

And I thought JoeF and Belle are two most respected contributor... why fight at personal level ... give up guys .. people like us should be frustated who are stuck with this retrogress thing !!! not you both ...

Take a chill pill both of you, will ya?

Well, Belle posted something that was clearly wrong. I corrected that, but she continued to post the wrong information.

That was very unusual for her, hence my tongue-in-cheek question if somebody had hijacked her account...

It looks to me that her emotional attachment to this particular issue got the better of her. While I can understand the OP's plight, there simply is nothing he can do...

In such a situation, the so-called Serenity Prayer is always helpful:

"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

Courage to change the things I can,

And wisdom to know the difference."

Link to comment

I think it was joef who made it personal.. what with hijack, dumb etc.,

Also, joef, posting BS is not the same as making it personal, just so you know.

So your excuse below, is just that, an excuse.

Its ok to accept the lapse of judgement and apologize to her. May God grant you the wisdom to do so.

Huh? It wasn't me who posted BS...

Link to comment

I think it was joef who made it personal.. what with hijack, dumb etc.,

Sigh. I suggest you read the thread...

I corrected Belle, and she then tried to get snarky, with "Really? Not even to EB1s? Not to EB2 ROW? No visa numbers at all?"

And if you read my posts, it was only after that that I said "don't play dumb"...

Now I suggest you apologize... Thank you.

Link to comment

We saw an approval today, so you should proly take infopass and enquire once again.

In that case, there was most likely already a visa number allocated before the numbers ran out.

Only such cases can be approved. That case had an RFE, and it is conceivable that the examiner got a number before the RFE was issued, or right after the answer was received.

The bottom line is that for a case to be approved, USCIS has to request a visa number from DOS. If they did that before the numbers ran out, and the PD is still current, then the case can be approved. If they don't have a visa number yet, the case can not be approved. That's all there is to it.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.