Nebraska Service Center Update - 2008
Posted Nov 21, 2008
©MurthyDotCom
The notes from an April 30, 2008 AILA Liaison Committee meeting with the Nebraska Service Center (NSC) were released in October 2008. Although several months have past since the meeting, the information largely remains current and relevant to MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers. Following are summaries of the most pertinent issues.
©MurthyDotCom
USCIS I-140 Processing Time Improvements
©MurthyDotCom
As many MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers know from experience, the processing times for I-140 employer petitions have become extremely lengthy. The processing times generally exceed a year, which is well beyond processing times in the recent past, and well beyond the USCIS processing target of no more than six months on processing most employment based petitions. In response, the NSC advised that it has hired new officers and expects to significantly reduce the processing times over the next few months. Of course, this was a statement made in April 2008. As of this writing, results of any efforts to address I-140 backlogs are not evident. The NSC gave April 2009 as their target date to reduce I-140s to a four-month processing time.
©MurthyDotCom
I-140s and Priority Date Issues
©MurthyDotCom
A series of questions was asked regarding modifications and corrections to I-140s. One important issue for some MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers is the potential to retain a priority date from an approved I-140 when filing a new, unrelated I-140 petition. This strategy was reported previously in the MurthyBulletin and is available on MurthyDotCom. While the retention of a priority date once an I-140 has been approved is clearly permitted in the law, the mechanism for making and confirming this request is not always clear, and the complexity increases depending upon the sequence of events. If the I-140 petition with the earlier priority date is approved prior to filing the second I-140 petition, then this request can be made with the I-140 filing and the retained priority date should be reflected on the approval notice. However, there are many scenarios involving I-140 petitions with earlier priority dates that are not yet approved at the time of the filing of a second I-140 petition.
©MurthyDotCom
The initial suggested procedure is to submit the I-485 with proof of the proper priority date for which the beneficiary is eligible. This should work, if the I-140 with the earlier priority date is approved at the time that the I-485 is filed. If the earlier priority date is needed in order to file the I-485, then the acceptance of the filing generally is confirmation that the request for the earlier date has been noted.
©MurthyDotCom
However, we at the Murthy Law Firm see cases in which either the I-140 petition with the earlier priority date was not approved until after the I-485 filing or the option was overlooked. In those situations, NSC suggests that the Application for Action on Approved Petition (Form I-824) can be used in order to obtain proof of the change of the priority date. Form I-824 is not required in order to make the request for retention or change of priority date, but it gives a mechanism to obtain a decision and proof that the request was granted.
©MurthyDotCom
I-485s Not Tracked by Priority Date
©MurthyDotCom
A question was asked about the volume of employment-based I-485 Application for Adjustment of Status cases pending with NSC as of April 2008. Also asked  was how many of the cases had current priority dates. The NSC advised that they had, at that time, approximately 190,000 EB I-485s. They also clarified that they do not track cases solely by priority date. While we are aware that cases were not tracked by priority dates, from the questions we receive, it is worth reiterating to our readers. Our firm see questions, frequently accompanied by outrage, asking why I-485 cases with later priority dates are approved prior to those with earlier priority dates. The answer is simply that the USCIS service centers do not re-sort or track I-485s solely based upon priority dates. Case processing is based upon filing date, but I-485s cannot be approved if the priority date is not current. The NSC also referenced the need for an I-485 to be what they refer to as "viable" in order to be approved. Viable cases are those with approved I-140 petitions, clean fingerprint and name-check results (or name checks pending over 180 days), as well as being eligible for visa issuance, based upon priority date.
©MurthyDotCom
Reentry Permits Require Fingerprinting
©MurthyDotCom
Some issues have arisen due to the need for fingerprinting in connection with applications for reentry permits. Reentry permits are travel documents used by permanent residents who need to remain outside of the U.S. in excess of one year. It is necessary to be in the U.S. at the time of filing this application. Additionally, under procedural revisions issued in March 2008, it is necessary to be fingerprinted to obtain the reentry permit. The instructions, issued by the USCIS, indicate that the fingerprints must be taken before departure. The policy on this, however, as confirmed by NSC, is not to consider the application abandoned if travel occurs before fingerprinting. Of course, if this is done, it will be necessary to return to the U.S. for the biometric appointment.
©MurthyDotCom
The NSC advises that, in order to attempt expediting the process, the word EXPEDITE should be written on the envelope as well as on the top of the application form. The expedite request needs to be accompanied by documentation of the reason for the request. In order to receive the fingerprinting notice more quickly, the filing should include pre-paid, self-addressed express mailing envelopes.
©MurthyDotCom
Conclusion

We at the Murthy Law Firm appreciate the efforts of AILA and the information provided by the NSC on these matters. We will continue to share information from the USCIS service centers with our MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers, as and when it is made available.