House Members Request Visa Bulletin Information

House Democrats Seek Information on Visa Bulletin Revision

Last week, a small contingent of US House of Representatives Democrats requested Department of Homeland Secretary Jeh Johnson and Department of State Secretary John Kerry to release information on the number of individuals harmed by the revision to the October Visa Bulletin and plans to provide relief for those individuals. The original October Visa Bulletin had modernized the visa system by showing both priority and filing dates to expedite the process and be more efficient with visa availability.

The letter has the following to say about the Revised Bulletin:

We have heard estimates that the revised Bulletin would decrease the number of immigrants eligible for filing by 80% to 95% from the number projected to be eligible under the original Bulletin filing dates. If true, the revision would effectively reverse the progress made toward the Administraton’s goals to reform our visa system.

As for a solution:

We strongly urge that the Department of Homeland Security implement regulatory changes that would benefit high-skilled workers waiting in the United States for immigrant visa numbers. Specifically, we are referring to 1) providing beneficiaries of an approved employment-based petition (Form I-140), and their derivative dependents, employment authorization; and 2) amending the regulations so that such petitions will remain valid in cases where the beneficiary has a new job that is in the same or similar classification as the job for which the petition was filed.

The revision to the October Visa Bulletin dashed the hopes of thousands of eligible applicants for Green Cards. This was labeled as #Visagate2015. Many of these hopeful applicants had been waiting for years for their priority dates to become current. Potential applicants under the Children Status Protection Act and Employment Based 2 and 3 categories Indian and Chinese nationals are among the most affected. A lawsuit has been filed, but the attempt to compel an injunction to undo the revision did not succeed.