IMP IV UPDATE: Info from USCIS on Pending visa applications

[pappu]

USCIS has responded to our questions on the pending visa numbers. Please read the reply in the 2 documents attached below:

http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/images/7/75/Uscisresponse1.pdf

http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/images/2/22/Uscisresponse2.pdf

Key points:

4. Pending I-485 applications with various EB2/EB3 categories were then identified by priority date. Only 6% of the applications included the priority date which reduces the numbers specific to the request. The number was further reduced when using a date of January 1, 2001 or later.

This changes a lot of our calculations published and calculations done by others.

Urls used in the letter:
www.uscis.gov/files/nativedacuments/operation_performance_apr09.pdf

http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/New%20Structure/3rd%20Level%20(Left%20Nav%20Children)/Green%20Card%20-%203rd%20Level/Pending%20Form%201485%20Reports.pdf

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/miuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=5e170e6bcb7e3210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=ae853ad15c673210VgnVCM100000082ca60a RCRD

[pappu]

Old thread to reference :

http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum16-iv-agenda-and-legislative-updates/630599-iv-update-on-visa-numbers-and-foia-data.html


Our recent analysis http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=36

[rayoflight]

Looking forward for the update.

Cheers,
Rayoflight

[innervoice]

Looking forward........

[amitjoey]

Thanks Pappu and the team for your hard work and staying on top of things.

[gc_dedo]

I stopped expecting much long back but keep up the good work.

[Nabeel]

Url not working ?

[Leo07]

vbkris77, Just curious to see How your calculations change with this new info...


Best!

[gcmadhu]

thanks for the update!

[sunny1000]

I just checked my receipt notices and they don't have a PD on them. I guess mine did not show up on their query and am not part of the 6%. People who paid for the FOIA got screwed because of a flimsy excuse. How come their own internal database was not queried to find out the correct number with PDs (which I assume they have and without which their website data won't be there)? Why query the external DB that is prone to errors and omissions?

[gc_on_demand]

4. Pending I-485 applications with various EB2/EB3 categories were then identified by priority date. Only 6% of the applications included the priority date which reduces the numbers specific to the request. The number was further reduced when using a date of January 1, 2001 or later.


Does that mean only 6% of I 485s had PD on it ? Anyway we paid them for data and they cheated us directly . Indirect benefit was at least they posted some data on their site and hope they will continue to do so. ( Correct data )

[vbkris77]

USCIS has responded to our questions on the pending visa numbers. Please read the reply in the 2 documents attached below:

http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/images/7/75/Uscisresponse1.pdf

http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/images/2/22/Uscisresponse2.pdf

Key points:

4. Pending I-485 applications with various EB2/EB3 categories were then identified by priority date. Only 6% of the applications included the priority date which reduces the numbers specific to the request. The number was further reduced when using a date of January 1, 2001 or later.

This changes a lot of our calculations published and calculations done by others.

Urls used in the letter:
www.uscis.gov/files/nativedacuments/operation_performance_apr09.pdf

http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/New%20Structure/3rd%20Level%20(Left%20Nav%20Children)/Green%20Card%20-%203rd%20Level/Pending%20Form%201485%20Reports.pdf

USCIS Home Page (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/miuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=5e170e6bcb7e3210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=ae853ad15c673210VgnVCM100000082ca60a RCRD)

It is my understanding that this is a cover-up story for their funky work on FOIA request data. Not to the data they published online (6% number).

Coming to the inventory thats not included in the online data, the analysis doesn't change EB2 demand as ROW is current and would have been processed at local offices much faster than Processing centers NSC and TSC.

EB2 I/C numbers will be off by that small percentage. Unless they give out the actual demand for these, it is not possible to say one way or other. We know the demand from Visa posts (aka DoS) and it doesn't change calculations much. Especially in a year where we have 10K more visas for EB or about 2860 more visa numbers for EB1, EB2, EB3.

[redcard]

4. "Pending I-485 applications with various EB2/EB3 categories were then identified by priority date. Only 6% of the applications included the priority date which reduces the numbers specific to the request. The number was further reduced when using a date of January 1, 2001 or later."


Well based on the above statement from the USCIS does it mean that the number 32,997 provided by the USCIS only included the 6% application where the priority date could be identified and which were filled after Jan 1, 2001. So the total applications pending is abt 550K + all the applications at the local offices + applications at the consulates + Concurrent filled applications.. so what are we talking about 650K pending EB2-EB3 applications. Correct me if I am wrong.

[kunal121]

Wow..This update is like the Critical Reasoning section on the GMAT.

From the letter it seems like the Data provided by USCIS in response to the FOIA had incomplete numbers. The correct numbers are probably the ones published by USCIS on their website (pdf report). Based on that assumption we can throw out one of the prediction tools created by immigrationvoice.org which was based on the FOIA data. The USCIS data seems to be closely tracking the visa priority date movements.

[arnab221]

I apologize but my pea sized brain has been incapable of analyzing on what has to be made of the single statement(6% have PD ) . Can some visa guru elaborate with numbers on what we should be expecting here . With the last analysis that IV gave ( last month ) which predicated that EB2 might move fast next year I was pretty hopeful and even had ordered my very own green card holder :D . Should I be canceling it now ?

Does this make an change to that ? Can someone do a numerical analysis ? It will be much appreciated by the other members too .

[pappu]

Wow..This update is like the Critical Reasoning section on the GMAT.

From the letter it seems like the Data provided by USCIS in response to the FOIA had incomplete numbers. The correct numbers are probably the ones published by USCIS on their website (pdf report). Based on that assumption we can throw out one of the prediction tools created by immigrationvoice.org which was based on the FOIA data. The USCIS data seems to be closely tracking the visa priority date movements.

You are incorrect. IV prediction tool is based based on data from USCIS website from September 2009. NOT the FOIA data. We had removed the FOIA data once USCIS published the data on their website that showed difference in the numbers.

Our recent analysis http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=36
and discussions with USCIS shows that the published data on USCIS site also may not be fully accurate. But the good news is that USCIS is being transparent and sharing the information that never happened in the past. It is all because of the members of this organization. We should be pursuing this further to get accurate data on regular basis.

[kunal121]

Thanks Mr Admin. From the report IV analysis is pretty detailed. Lets hope we can get some legislative relief during the CIR effort next year. Lets get organized since we need to give this our very best. I would suggest we start preparing our campaign strategy to be put into gear on Jan 1st. Everyone who wants to make a difference needs to know exactly what needs to be done in a concerted fashion so that we can influence the legislative process to the best of our abilities.

[andycool]

You are incorrect. IV prediction tool is based based on data from USCIS website from September 2009. NOT the FOIA data. We had removed the FOIA data once USCIS published the data on their website that showed difference in the numbers.

Our recent analysis http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=36
and discussions with USCIS shows that the published data on USCIS site also may not be fully accurate. But the good news is that USCIS is being transparent and sharing the information that never happened in the past. It is all because of the members of this organization. We should be pursuing this further to get accurate data on regular basis.

Puppu ,

i have one question

point no 5 from USCIS Letter shows that they compared A numbers from I 140 against I 485 ?? does this mean they reduced the number by approximately 2/3 since , only primary applicants A numbers will match with the A numbers on I 140 petitions , dependents A numbers will not match and their I 485 are not accounted ?? am i correct
Can any one explain this

Thanks

[redcard]

Can we ask for refund ? as Clearly Shows that Contractor messed up on Query. As Contractor gained 5K for writing bad Query. :)

"Our response from the contractor responsible for writing and executing the Special query...."

Well USCIS should learn a lesson. This is what happens when you have a contractor like CSC who does not pay full wages, the disrgunteled employees work like this.. only if they had a qualified person to understand the need and do the work. May be CSC should pay to IV ...


Pay Issues wth Contractor (http://www.samessenger.com/NewsView.asp?ID=5646)


U.S. Labor Department recovers more than $1.4 million in back wages for 237
contract employees of USCIS Vermont Service Center
BOSTON — The U.S. Department of Labor has recovered more than $1.4 million in back wages for 237 employees
of Computer Sciences Corp., a contractor for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services Vermont Service Center at various locations in St. Albans and Essex Junction, Vt.
Computer Sciences Corp. employed contract workers at the Vermont Service Center between Dec. 1, 2005 and Nov.
30, 2007 under federal service contracts subject to the McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act's prevailing wage
provisions. Following an investigation, the Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division cited the company for
misclassifying employees and failing to pay them the proper prevailing wage rates for the type of work they were
actually performing.
"The laws governing prevailing wages on federal contracts grant clear protections to workers, and the Labor
Department will continue to ensure companies are following the rules," said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis.
The company agreed to pay a total of $1,448,505 in back wages to 237 workers. Payment is to be made by Oct. 31,
2009, and proof of payment is to be provided to the Wage and Hour Division by Dec. 13, 2009.
The McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act requires contractors and subcontractors performing on federal service
contracts in excess of $2,500 to pay service employees no less than the wage rates and fringe benefits found prevailing
in the locality for the classification of work that they perform.

[cinqsit]

Thanks IV, Pappu and all IV admins for your efforts in getting this clarified

I agree with Pappu - USCIS just by clarifying their number mismatch is now more transparent ....its really a good development!

I couldnt in the world would have thought 2 years ago that having this information available from USCIS was even possible. (it seemed like a blackhole)

Thanks again to IV...

cinqsit

[cinqsit]

Pappu et al,

Ok that did it! i made my first $50 donation to IV after thinking about it for many months I think its high time I support an organization that is working for my benefit

Thanks IV!

cinqsit.

[ronhira]

Can we ask for refund ? as Clearly Shows that Contractor messed up on Query. As Contractor gained 5K for writing bad Query. :)

"Our response from the contractor responsible for writing and executing the Special query...."

if this is a joke..... then u'r a funny guy..... if u'r not joking...... then u'r a fool..... if the 6% pending applications indicate my wait time as another 5 years..... then 94% additional (uncounted) applications imply around 30 years of wait time for my family..... & that approximate proportion applies to everyone here..... wonder y no one see it that way.......

5k is cheap dirt........ they can keep it..... they can also keep my taxes, social security, medicare and everything i paid for last 9 years.... but i am sure.... i won't wait for 30 years.... my personal limit is 1 more year..... if my application is not approved by the end of 2010..... i will go back.... luv the research lab where i work.... but i refuse to be the hostage of this cruel system......

[ronhira]

admin,

i've edited my post.... stop sending me pm warnings for no reason....

[kunal121]

Here are a few suggestions for the IV team:
1. Lets get prepared for the 2010 CIR effort bringing the IV community together in the effort outside the regular lobbying. Just asking for general IV support donations is not enough. Start a campaign specifically for collecting money in preparation for the CIR effort.
2. Research the 2006 immigration bill since the 2010 bill will mostly rehash of the past effort rather than a completely new effort. We need to be able to interpret the content of the 2010 bill and differences between the 2006 and 2010 CIR content and be ready with any corrective recommendations through our lobbying effort.
3. Proactively prepare for positive media articles by initiating contacts which can be influenced towards our positions and have a media response package ready with detailed ready to post letters backing our positions with facts and figures. This is extremely important since negative articles need to be responded with positive responses.
4. The media package should consist of professionally designed brochures which can be handed to media and the elected representatives. Education is extremely important and professionalism will count both in content and presentation.
5. Hire a full time PR firm with the CIR specific IV donations so that during sensitive debates in the house and the senate our positions do not get drowned or negatively impacted and our message can be positively presented.
6. Lastly I would urge that behind the scenes lobbying efforts should give way to a transparent approach regardless of the risks of giving out too much information. Lets take a page out of the Obama campaign and end the secretive efforts. If our path is right and what we are doing will benefit this country we will succeed. We need to be open and honest with our approach and we will see that the CIR effort will result in true reform for a system which can help true talent to come and create jobs in America.

[jhaalaa]

Let us send another FOIA request with references to the word TOTAL as it means in different dictionaries (attach hard copies).

I guess the request be copied to the various newspapers and top level officials.

[amitjoey]

Kunal: These are really good suggestions. Let me assure you that most of this is what IV's agenda is. I am not IV Core, however most of this has been discussed. Let me share some thoughts with you.

Here are a few suggestions for the IV team:
1. Lets get prepared for the 2010 CIR effort bringing the IV community together in the effort outside the regular lobbying. Just asking for general IV support donations is not enough. Start a campaign specifically for collecting money in preparation for the CIR effort.

General IV Donations is the money raised for lobbying. Lobbying takes up a big chunk of this effort. This is what we need specifically to prepare ourselves for 2010 CIR. So do we really need a different pot of money for CIR?. In the past, money has been raised for specific efforts outside of the main effort for ex: for FOIA.
But the reality is that individual contributions do not add up to reflect the strength of our organisation. We are 30,000 strong but are unable to collect even $10,000 every month. That is less than 30 cents per member per month. The big obstacle to raising money is us members themselves. Members take offence when asked to contribute.

2. Research the 2006 immigration bill since the 2010 bill will mostly rehash of the past effort rather than a completely new effort. We need to be able to interpret the content of the 2010 bill and differences between the 2006 and 2010 CIR content and be ready with any corrective recommendations through our lobbying effort.

IV has come up with specific recommendations for what we would like to see in a bill/s for our community. IV actively analyses any bill that comes up or has a chance to come up for debate. If you want to get your hands on that document, contact Anu or Pappu and ask for the IV_Advocacy package.

3. Proactively prepare for positive media articles by initiating contacts which can be influenced towards our positions and have a media response package ready with detailed ready to post letters backing our positions with facts and figures. This is extremely important since negative articles need to be responded with positive responses.
4. The media package should consist of professionally designed brochures which can be handed to media and the elected representatives. Education is extremely important and professionalism will count both in content and presentation.

IV does have an updated, professionally designed media package to be used. Time and again, IV core has shared it with members who interview on behalf of IV and talk to the media. IV has talking points, reference material and counter arguments. IV does not have financial resources to pay for Advertisements or cover inserts. IV is proactive about getting IV's viewpoint across and urges members to write and talk to the media. Unfortunately sometimes, our members do face a media that uses just part of the interview or language and manipulates words to use for their benefit, so we have to be highly vigilant. All media requests go through IV admin/core to check on the intent of the reporters request.

5. Hire a full time PR firm with the CIR specific IV donations so that during sensitive debates in the house and the senate our positions do not get drowned or negatively impacted and our message can be positively presented.


We do have a paid lobbying firm that represent our interests and educates lawmakers. This is not enough, because during debates lawmakers behave as if they do not have highly skilled immigrants in their constituency and so do not have to pay attention. This is mainly IV members fault, since we have not been able to visit lawmakers offices in the numbers that we should. Our members need to show up at lawmakers offices and educate them. Tell them you live in their constituency and represent IV so that when the lobbying firm does their work, they are paying attention and our voices are not ignored or drowned.

6. Lastly I would urge that behind the scenes lobbying efforts should give way to a transparent approach regardless of the risks of giving out too much information. Lets take a page out of the Obama campaign and end the secretive efforts. If our path is right and what we are doing will benefit this country we will succeed. We need to be open and honest with our approach and we will see that the CIR effort will result in true reform for a system which can help true talent to come and create jobs in America.

Individual members need to be open,honest, and courageous enough to talk to their lawmakers and media about issues we face. Just crying and debating on IV's website does not help. IV as an organisation is transparent, honest about its objective and has an open published agenda. The things that IV has to keep secret about is the actual strategy that IV will use to achieve its agenda, that is because in the past, trolls have used our strategy against us.

We as an organisation can succeed, if individual members do their part: Two things come to my mind as basic things that any member can do and should do:
1) Meet lawmakers: You have to do this only once, takes 1/2 hour. Follow up with articles and build a rapport with the aides, this is extremely vital and will come handy during debates. Our voices will thus not get drowned.
2)Donate/Contribute monthly. Even if it is just $25.

[pa_arora]

I, like all others here, was shocked when I saw the reply. Read the PDFs few times and this is what I think-

Page 1 of the PDF talks abut the FOIA request, how was it generated and its short comings (6% issue). Whereas, Page 2 talks abut USCIS report to be "almost" accurate and final(NSC+TSC cases, thats y I said "almost").

Why do we think what they have published on the USCIS is just 6% of the total 485 inventory? Am I missing something here?

[kunal121]

"Page 1 of the PDF talks abut the FOIA request, how was it generated and its short comings (6% issue). Whereas, Page 2 talks abut USCIS report to be "almost" accurate and final(NSC+TSC cases, thats y I said "almost")."

This is exactly what I thought when I read this....

[kaarmaa]

Kunal: These are really good suggestions. Let me assure you that most of this is what IV's agenda is. I am not IV Core, however most of this has been discussed. Let me share some thoughts with you.

[/COLOR]

We as an organisation can succeed, if individual members do their part: Two things come to my mind as basic things that any member can do and should do:
1) Meet lawmakers: You have to do this only once, takes 1/2 hour. Follow up with articles and build a rapport with the aides, this is extremely vital and will come handy during debates. Our voices will thus not get drowned.
2)Donate/Contribute monthly. Even if it is just $25.

Let me say this first ..I have nothing against donations for IV and I personally want and will donate to IV.

Here is my observation :

Mostly, members who ask for donations have already filed for 485 during the 2007 fiasco (or before) and are on EAD, waiting for GC. Rarely, I see junior members as donors. When I mean 'junior' I mean members who are still in PERM or 140 stage. The common propaganda is 'Donate without expectations'. Well, for new members like me and to get real attention from others, why cannot IV publish some kind of agenda for that year? I'm sure IV has a plan on how to use the donations...

Again, My honest intention here is not opposing donations but to get help on knowing better on knowing the agenda for the next quarter or so.

Thanks

[spulugur]

Per IV analysis on donor forum, you will get your GC before I do. I have been donating - knowing fully well that my donation dollars will help others (like you) before they help me. (>500 already, subscribed $25/12moth). For eg. a fix to file 485 before dates being current will help you get the interim benefits. If you get your EAD, what is in it for me? I already have mine. :-)

I dont mean to badger you - I am saying there are not as many tiers as you think there are. Please join the donor forum and notice the activity for your self. Read the thread titled Donor Forum Meeting notes (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum109-forum-for-donors/796207-donor-forum-meeting-notes.html) to see how IV current agenda is helping you.

If the Q moves, every one benefits. Besides, you are not as back of the Q as you think you are. I would not mind exchanging priority dates with you.

[pa_arora]

No offence, but lets just keep the focus on the subject of the thread.

[sandy_anand]

Let me say this first ..I have nothing against donations for IV and I personally want and will donate to IV.

Here is my observation :

Mostly, members who ask for donations have already filed for 485 during the 2007 fiasco (or before) and are on EAD, waiting for GC. Rarely, I see junior members as donors. When I mean 'junior' I mean members who are still in PERM or 140 stage. The common propaganda is 'Donate without expectations'. Well, for new members like me and to get real attention from others, why cannot IV publish some kind of agenda for that year? I'm sure IV has a plan on how to use the donations...

Again, My honest intention here is not opposing donations but to get help on knowing better on knowing the agenda for the next quarter or so.

Thanks

Kaarmaa, I have a similar profile to yours and have not filed 485 either. I was a member of IV for more than 2 years before I decided to become a donor. My opinion is that early 2010 is going to be an important period with regards to immigration legislation. Our contribution to an organization like IV can only help us and not hurt us. If this proposed bill goes through, it does not matter what our priority dates are. Everyone will become current due to the recapture provision and other similar provisions.
As to IV's agenda, I think they have posted in the forum and is there for all to see. Currently the only agenda is to focus entirely on the upcoming legislative battle on the Hill in early 2010. Hope this would convince you that contributing to IV can only strengthen (y)our chances.

[amitjoey]

YES! As we see it right now, if the good provisions remain intact. We can all have all PD's current in 4 months. And will stay that way, because of recapture, not counting dependants and other good provisions. Which means, those who missed july -07 can file and also get their GC's in an year. Everybody retrogressed, non-retrogrosed, all EB categories benefit from this.

NOW. The big question is will these provisions remain intact. We have seen in the past that EB Community in general is NOT taken seriously. Anti-Immigrants put a lot of pressure and and somewhere along the debate our provisions get yanked out. OR worst: Bad provisions are inserted or good provisions diluted with bad subtext.

THAT is exactly why we need to work hard, leave no stone unturned, unite under IV.
We need loud voice and deep pocket.
We are relying on our lobbyist to do a lot of work, but they need to be paid.
We are relying on members to educate their reps.