In your case, your employer petitioned you in 2005, which would be your priority date. (The actual priority date in employment cases is when the PERM application is filed with the Department of Labor). Even though your I-140 petition has already been approved, the Visa Bulletin shows that they are currently processing green cards for people with 2003 priority dates. Therefore, if your priority date is 2005, and they are only processing 2003 (because of priority date retrogression), you still must wait until your 2005 priority date is once again current before you’ll be eligible for your green card.
The same situation applies for family petitions. For example, the USCIS’ processing time for F-4 petitions (brother or sister of U.S. citizens) is about 9 years (2001). That is just the estimated length of the time USCIS takes to process and approve the petition. It does not mean the person will get a green card in 9 years, upon approval of the petition. Once that petition is approved, the actual priority date for F-4 petitions is 1987, meaning that even after the petition is approved, the person would have to wait many additional years until they actually received the visa.
I know that it can be very frustrating with the erratic and unpredictable movement of priority dates. At one point the priority dates for employment based petitions were "current", then they moved back to 2005, then they became "unavailable", then lingered at around 2002, and have slowly moved back up to 2003. However, as clarified above, the USCIS’ processing times of petitions (and applications) are different from a person’s eligibility for visa or green card based on the priority dates. I hope this will minimize the frustration and confusion of people whose petitions were already approved, and are wondering why, despite the approval, they have not been given their green cards yet.
* * *
Michael J. Gurfinkel is licensed, and an active member of the State Bar of California and New York. All immigration services are provided by, or under the supervision of, an active member of the State Bar of California. Each case is different. The information contained herein (including testimonials, "Success Stories," endorsements and re-enactments) is of a general nature, and is not intended to apply to any particular case, and does not constitute a prediction, warranty, guarantee or legal advice regarding the outcome of your legal matter. No attorney-client relationship is, or shall be, established with any reader.