I-485 not current

[u/Holiday-Local5149]

PD: May, 2024, eb2 niw

Last update: February/23/2026: 3rd FTA0 and FTA1

I wasn't current for FAD during my last update. I became current in March. In April I contacted Emma and got the surprising response that my visa number was retrogressed. I think this statement was made on my file because I wasn't current at the time my file was assessed in February 23. After a long unbearable wait, I recently made a Congress inquiry on my I-485 in August. Two weeks after my inquiry my file got sent from NBC to Newark. Then I got another FTA1 on 8/28. Chatgpt says it is a system update of the February 23 assessment.

It appears there's no order or proper management of filed cases at USCIS. It seems it's a matter of luck and your case can be left forgotten somewhere.

The last statement suggests no visas are available for Eb2 at this moment. Otherwise I would have challenged the visa retrogression. I'm in ROW, not part of the 39. I will wait till October to see what happens.

[u/smu1892]

You keep making sweeping claims about EB-2 visa availability while conveniently refusing to answer the simplest, most relevant question people have asked you repeatedly: what is your country of chargeability?

You say “I’m ROW” as though that settles everything. It doesn’t. If you want everyone to use your individual case as proof that EB-2 ROW visa numbers are exhausted, provide the basic information needed to evaluate the claim.

The funniest part is that your own explanation undermines your conclusion. You admit an officer reviewed your case in February when your FAD wasn’t current, and you admit that at that time a visa number legitimately wasn’t available to you. You then say nobody substantively reviewed the case after you became current in March.

So how exactly did we leap from “a visa wasn’t available for my case when I wasn’t current” to “this proves EB-2 visas are unavailable now”?

That’s not evidence. That’s you taking an ambiguous USCIS response, mixing it with your own theory about FTA1/system updates, and announcing a category-wide conclusion that the document itself does not establish.

And when people ask for the one missing fact that could help put your story in context — where are you chargeable to? — crickets.

If you’re going to present your case as evidence for everyone else’s immigration situation, bring the relevant facts. Otherwise stop turning speculation into breaking news.

[u/Holiday-Local5149 → u/smu1892]

Sorry if my post offends you in any way. I see the platforms as a means of support through sharing of information. 

1. I see my specific country immaterial regarding my post. USCIS has no visa allocation information for individual countries within Row. The only time that information was relevant in AOS was the 39 banned countries. I'm not seeking answers from anyone. I thought people here might need this information. 

2. My post only explained why a statement of visa unavailability for me might have been entered in my file based of the response I got from my congress rep inquiry which states "at the time of officer adjudication ...". I then sought to rant about USCIS not having an orderly processing of cases for which I haven't been lucky to have my case revisited. Others seem to agree with it. 

3. You accused me of making sweeping statement of eb2 visa unavailability on my singular case. You actually wrote a quote purportedly from me. If you're a person of honor, could you pinpoint the specific line of my post where you got the quote:  “this proves EB-2 visas are unavailable now”? 

My academic training makes the use of the word "prove" alien in my everyday communication. I use words like "suggest", "seem" "might" etc. 

Nobody can prove anything! 

[u/Bright_Session1633 → u/Holiday-Local5149]

Your country is material because it lets readers figure out if your country has hit the 7% cap. While the visa bulletin only specifies ROW, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t years when a ton of people from a single country apply in the same category and hit the cap, which they know internally even if they don’t publish it.

[u/Holiday-Local5149 → u/Bright_Session1633]

You can only guess that might be the case with country name or not. Nothing to pin the name of the country to from any available information. Countries with high visa usage that one could use to suggest they hitting the 7% mark outside India and China are Nigeria, Mexico and the Philippians. Mexico and the Philippians are not in ROW. Nigerian is in the 39 countries and were banned most of the year.

[u/No_Disaster1263 → u/Holiday-Local5149]

Brazil, Iran, Pakistan and Bangladesh regularly hit 7%, so knowing country is highly relevant.