WAKE UP F2A FELLOW MEMBERS AND SEND THIS DRAFT

[jhp 10]

Letter from F2A petitioner (Green card holder/LPR)

SUB :- Huge unissued F2A visa ending in long waiting times

Respected Sir/Madam,

The very important part of family union is being hit for green card spouses with the long waits. The wait time for reunite spouse and child with permanent resident(petitioner) is nearly 4 years. United families with shorter waiting periods will add and increase economic growth, as spouses would be able to work in mental peace and can contribute more in taxes.

I am not demanding anything more. Please check the below data and you will realise NVC is not following immigration act,1990.

Below are the statistics from travel.state.gov that NVC is using only partial quota of total alloted 88000 visas to f2a (under immigration act 1990) and causing agony and a long wait times for green card holders.

Year------------------------2001------2002------2003------2004-------2005------2006------2007------2008------2009

exempted----------------20,661-----14,565----9,343----17,160-----16,770----14,987----14,602----25,798----29,588

per country limit-------16,464-----11,524----8,189-----7,877------9,540----13,101----18,078----19,002----24,687

total---------------------37,125-----26,089---17,532----25,037-----26,310----28,088----32,680----44,800----54,275

visa usage in (%)-------42%----------30%------20%-------28%--------30%-------32%-------37%-------51%-------62%

visa unused in (%)------58%----------70%------80%-------72%--------70%-------68%-------63%-------49%-------38%

I am writing this letter as I believe you are the right person who can take appropriate action on this

Thanking you,

F2A green card holder.

SEND THIS LETTER TO FOLLOWING EMAIL ADDRESSES.....

Margaret.Gleason@dhs.gov

charles.oppenheim@dhs.gov

AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov

cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov

VISABULLETIN@STATE.GOV

listserv@calist.state.gov

nvcinquiry@state.gov

and any other address which can help us....

[Mxjoh29 1]

Hi All, I am a regular visitor of this forum but never registered. I am seeing some very interesting move to raise our voice. I did pretty much same when I was stuck in FBI name check for my GC process. In this exercise we are not loosing anything. When we send emails, is it better to mention our case number ? or not?

I live in washington DC and work for FDIC. If you all agree i can go directly to oppenheim's office and dro the same.

Thank You,

Mxjoh29

[jhp 10]

Hi All, I am a regular visitor of this forum but never registered. I am seeing some very interesting move to raise our voice. I did pretty much same when I was stuck in FBI name check for my GC process. In this exercise we are not loosing anything. When we send emails, is it better to mention our case number ? or not?

I live in washington DC and work for FDIC. If you all agree i can go directly to oppenheim's office and dro the same.

Thank You,

Mxjoh29

thanks friend....yes..if you can send our voice and pain to Mr. Oppenheim,that would be great. Tell him the unjustice to our category and if possible know the reasons....thanks once again...

We are sending emails to the concern authorities and please friend update in this forum who email the draft .....we will definately get noticed and win for f2a spouses and children... :thumbs:

Edited September 11, 2011 by jhp

[Chittagong 11]

thanks friend....yes..if you can send our voice and pain to Mr. Oppenheim,that would be great. Tell him the unjustice to our category and if possible know the reasons....thanks once again...

We are sending emails to the concern authorities and please friend update in this forum who email the draft .....we will definately get noticed and win for f2a spouses and children... :thumbs:

Great job!! I think Email is not enough to turn them on. I decided to send 10 letters to Mr oppenheim's office in Monday. If you could do so..

Thanks!!

[Mxjoh29 1]

Does any one know, Mr oppenheim's office address ?

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Letter from F2A petitioner (Green card holder/LPR)

SUB :- Huge unissued F2A visa ending in long waiting times

Respected Sir/Madam,

The very important part of family union is being hit for green card spouses with the long waits. The wait time for reunite spouse and child with permanent resident(petitioner) is nearly 4 years. United families with shorter waiting periods will add and increase economic growth, as spouses would be able to work in mental peace and can contribute more in taxes.

I am not demanding anything more. Please check the below data and you will realise NVC is not following immigration act,1990.

Below are the statistics from travel.state.gov that NVC is using only partial quota of total alloted 88000 visas to f2a (under immigration act 1990) and causing agony and a long wait times for green card holders.

Year------------------------2001------2002------2003------2004-------2005------2006------2007------2008------2009

exempted----------------20,661-----14,565----9,343----17,160-----16,770----14,987----14,602----25,798----29,588

per country limit-------16,464-----11,524----8,189-----7,877------9,540----13,101----18,078----19,002----24,687

total---------------------37,125-----26,089---17,532----25,037-----26,310----28,088----32,680----44,800----54,275

visa usage in (%)-------42%----------30%------20%-------28%--------30%-------32%-------37%-------51%-------62%

visa unused in (%)------58%----------70%------80%-------72%--------70%-------68%-------63%-------49%-------38%

I am writing this letter as I believe you are the right person who can take appropriate action on this

Thanking you,

F2A green card holder.

SEND THIS LETTER TO FOLLOWING EMAIL ADDRESSES.....

Margaret.Gleason@dhs.gov

charles.oppenheim@dhs.gov

AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov

cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov

VISABULLETIN@STATE.GOV

listserv@calist.state.gov

nvcinquiry@state.gov

and any other address which can help us....

The wait time for F2A's is currently less than 3 years.

INA section 201 sets the minimum limits on the number of preference visas that can be issued in a year, but it doesn't require that the number of visas issued must exactly match the limit. Department of State really doesn't have much control over this. Many people do not receive a visa when their priority date becomes current. Some are no longer eligible in the category they were petitioned in. Some are found ineligible when they apply for the visa. Sometimes the petitioner dies before the visa can be issued. Others simply lose interest in immigrating. Department of State makes adjustments to the available pool of visa numbers when they become aware that a particular beneficiary won't be receiving a visa. This can contribute to the advancement of the cutoff date in the visa bulletin. Otherwise, they have to presume that the beneficiaries whose priority dates have become current will, at some point, apply for a visa.

I'm really not sure what you want DoS to do about this.

[Meen 0]

well this sounds interesting... i also think tht we should SOON be eligible for visas as are the citizens...i wana go to my husband too!! so what r we doing again?

[miraya 8]

Hi All, I am a regular visitor of this forum but never registered. I am seeing some very interesting move to raise our voice. I did pretty much same when I was stuck in FBI name check for my GC process. In this exercise we are not loosing anything. When we send emails, is it better to mention our case number ? or not?

I live in washington DC and work for FDIC. If you all agree i can go directly to oppenheim's office and dro the same.

Thank You,

Mxjoh29

Hi Nukapeyyi,

That sounds exciting. We should definitely meet the people concerned in person. I live in Pittsburgh and can make a trip to DC to pursue the matter. They should definitely give us an appointment, being govt officials. I think first we shud try to send hardcopy of the letter and a bouquet to greet him and express our facts and concerns. This should include a quite a large group of people. If it does not work, we shud definitely meet them. We shud form a small grp of representatives and meet the officials.

Peace

[jhp 10]

The wait time for F2A's is currently less than 3 years.

INA section 201 sets the minimum limits on the number of preference visas that can be issued in a year, but it doesn't require that the number of visas issued must exactly match the limit. Department of State really doesn't have much control over this. Many people do not receive a visa when their priority date becomes current. Some are no longer eligible in the category they were petitioned in. Some are found ineligible when they apply for the visa. Sometimes the petitioner dies before the visa can be issued. Others simply lose interest in immigrating. Department of State makes adjustments to the available pool of visa numbers when they become aware that a particular beneficiary won't be receiving a visa. This can contribute to the advancement of the cutoff date in the visa bulletin. Otherwise, they have to presume that the beneficiaries whose priority dates have become current will, at some point, apply for a visa.

I'm really not sure what you want DoS to do about this.

yep...you are absolutely right by quoting sec 201 sets minimum limit ....do you know section says if in any fiscal year filing in f2a is more than 224000 then they have to issue more visas then this prescribed minimum means they have to issue more than 88000 per year.... but minimum they have to issue 88000 visas....

As you have written there are many factors affecting the issuance of visas like death and ineligibility and unwillingness to immigrate etc....My friend that is what DOS and NVC is suppose to do...And by the way, if they are not using 10 to 15 % we can understand but they are not using 70% of the visas....can you explain me..why???

We just draw attention to the concern people that they are doing injustice to us by not using the quota alloted to us....just read the draft we have prepared and if you want to make any amendment please feel free to ask...

by the way thanks friend for ur feedback...

Edited September 11, 2011 by jhp

[Miami_Boy 9]

Guys!! I just believed that you wont have to wait for 4 years like I did 3.5 years. I seen that VB already gave you an estimate of prediction for next 2 VB, which is really good news.May be it will move slowly. As i also believe even if your case is current now, NVC wont issue an interview letter because of how busy your consulate offices are. I am assuiming that after 2 months later when overseas embassy have enough open slot for F2A, it will move 3-4 month as per VB.

AS LAW doesn't promises that given out of full qoata of 88000, but it prevent not to exceeded.

So Just be patience!!!

Good Luck!!!

[jhp 10]

Guys!! I just believed that you wont have to wait for 4 years like I did 3.5 years. I seen that VB already gave you an estimate of prediction for next 2 VB, which is really good news.May be it will move slowly. As i also believe even if your case is current now, NVC wont issue an interview letter because of how busy your consulate offices are. I am assuiming that after 2 months later when overseas embassy have enough open slot for F2A, it will move 3-4 month as per VB.

AS LAW doesn't promises that given out of full qoata of 88000, but it prevent not to exceeded.

So Just be patience!!!

Good Luck!!!

sorry to say but my friend you are wrong....the truth is exactly opposite...the section of immigration law,1990 says if in any fiscal year filing in f2a is more than 224000 then they have to issue more visas then this prescribed minimum means they have to issue more than 88000 per year.... but minimum they have to issue 88000 visas....

plz join us...we are going for noble cause and want you also to participate and send our draft to the concern authorities.....thanks for ur feedback..

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You would do better if you cite and highlight the portion of the law that supports your assertion.

[jhp 10]

its not possible to send to this address listserv and charles.oppenheim bcaz user unknown....but atleast try to send to other addresses...plz join us friends...just send this message for our urself and all the f2a spouses and children.....thanks

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

yep...you are absolutely right by quoting sec 201 sets minimum limit ....do you know section says if in any fiscal year filing in f2a is more than 224000 then they have to issue more visas then this prescribed minimum means they have to issue more than 88000 per year.... but minimum they have to issue 88000 visas....

As you have written there are many factors affecting the issuance of visas like death and ineligibility and unwillingness to immigrate etc....My friend that is what DOS and NVC is suppose to do...And by the way, if they are not using 10 to 15 % we can understand but they are not using 70% of the visas....can you explain me..why???

We just draw attention to the concern people that they are doing injustice to us by not using the quota alloted to us....just read the draft we have prepared and if you want to make any amendment please feel free to ask...

by the way thanks friend for ur feedback...

I think you're misinterpreting INA section 201. It doesn't say that Department of State must issue a minimum of 88000 F2A visas. They use the term "not to exceed in any fiscal year the number specified in subsection (c)". Section (c) describes how the numbers are calculated for any given fiscal year.

I think you may be confusing this with the term "minimum limit" used in the visa bulletin. I think you're interpreting this to mean that these are the minimum number of visas which must be issued. The term actually refers to INA 201(c)(1)(B)(ii), which states:

In no case shall the number computed under subparagraph (A) be less than 226,000.

This means the upper limit will never be lower than 226,000, but it doesn't require Department of State to actually issue that many visas.

I can't tell you why all of the available visa numbers are not used. I don't even think Department of State can tell you that. When someone's priority date becomes current they have a full year to act on it. If someone does act on it but doesn't end up immigrating, for whatever reason, then INA section 206 says their visa number goes back into the pool to be allocated to someone else. If someone doesn't act on it then DoS has to presume that they are eligible for the full year. As I'm sure you are aware, stuff happens that DoS can't anticipate. For example, someone becomes eligible for a family preference visa because their priority date became current, and suddenly there are half a dozen DS-230's filed - one for the primary beneficiary and five for derivative beneficiaries. DoS anticipated that one visa number would be available, but six ended up being used.

I'm still not sure what you're trying to accomplish. Are you trying to compel DoS to issue the maximum number of visas that they are statutorily allowed to issue within a fiscal year? The only way I can see that happening is if they handle family preference visas the same way they handle H1's - open the flood gates at the beginning of the fiscal year, and then slam the gates as soon as the maximum number of visa numbers has been used. The window for issuing family preference visas would be reduced to a few days every fiscal year.

[jhp 10]

I think you're misinterpreting INA section 201. It doesn't say that Department of State must issue a minimum of 88000 F2A visas. They use the term "not to exceed in any fiscal year the number specified in subsection (c)". Section (c) describes how the numbers are calculated for any given fiscal year.

I think you may be confusing this with the term "minimum limit" used in the visa bulletin. I think you're interpreting this to mean that these are the minimum number of visas which must be issued. The term actually refers to INA 201(c)(1)(B)(ii), which states:

In no case shall the number computed under subparagraph (A) be less than 226,000.

This means the upper limit will never be lower than 226,000, but it doesn't require Department of State to actually issue that many visas.

I can't tell you why all of the available visa numbers are not used. I don't even think Department of State can tell you that. When someone's priority date becomes current they have a full year to act on it. If someone does act on it but doesn't end up immigrating, for whatever reason, then INA section 206 says their visa number goes back into the pool to be allocated to someone else. If someone doesn't act on it then DoS has to presume that they are eligible for the full year. As I'm sure you are aware, stuff happens that DoS can't anticipate. For example, someone becomes eligible for a family preference visa because their priority date became current, and suddenly there are half a dozen DS-230's filed - one for the primary beneficiary and five for derivative beneficiaries. DoS anticipated that one visa number would be available, but six ended up being used.

I'm still not sure what you're trying to accomplish. Are you trying to compel DoS to issue the maximum number of visas that they are statutorily allowed to issue within a fiscal year? The only way I can see that happening is if they handle family preference visas the same way they handle H1's - open the flood gates at the beginning of the fiscal year, and then slam the gates as soon as the maximum number of visa numbers has been used. The window for issuing family preference visas would be reduced to a few days every fiscal year.

sorry friend..i dont want to tell you that they issue 88000 visas or more than that....i want to tell ou that they have issued less than 30% in many years(and probably this fiscal year 2012 is looking like that kind of year)....How can this be justified by any of us???? or even by DoS ???? Please friend dont tell that 70% or 80% of applicant dont respond within the time limit and they dont correspond in time .In F2a people are desperate to meet their soulmate ......you can make this argument for other categories but not F2A...

If you agree please join us...thanks for ur feedback

Edited September 11, 2011 by jhp