Senate CIR Bill Summary & Discussion

[Spectator]

Placeholder for Anchor Post

[justvisiting]

Anchor Post
Legalization Provisions

-Bill creates a new RPI status.
-Must have been in the US out of status prior to 12/31/11
-If present between 1/1/12 and 12/30/12 and parent, spouse or child of an RPI, can also qualify
-RPI application period will be 1 year, extendable by 18 months.
-RPI lasts 6 years, renewable. Must have income above 125% poverty level to be able to renew.
-Most grounds of inadmissibility and deportability apply
-RPIs will not qualify for GC until everyone in the GC queue has been cleared, and a minimum of 10 years
-RPIs who came in younger than 16 eligible for the DREAM act: don't have to wait the 10 years.
-RPIs will be able to access the merit-based system (either track 1 or 2).

Citizenship
-DREAM Act can file for citizenship as soon as they get GC
-Anyone with work authorization for 10 years can file for citizenship 3 years after GC

Immigrant Visa Changes

Immediate Relatives now include spouses and minor children of LPRs

FB now reduced to 161,000 visas, unused visas recaptured.
FB-1-A (unmarried adult sons and daughters of USC): 35%
FB-1-B (married adult sons and daughters less than 31 y/o of USC): 25%
FB-2 (unmarried adult sons and daughters of LPR): 40%
Country caps increased to 15%
FB-3 and 4 dissapear after 18 months.

EB stays at 140,000 visas but
-Dependents are excluded
-Country caps removed
-Recapture of unused visas
-Others have reported a roll-over provision, but I can't find it

New cap exempt: EB-1; PhD in any field; MD who completed J-1 waiver or home residency requirement.
EB-2 exempt: MD 5 year NIW and STEM MS (but only if from a US Doctoral Institution)
EB-2: 40%
EB-3: 40% + 120K visas for the first 4 FY, while the Merits-based system is set up
EB-4: 10%
EB-5: 10%
New EB-6 category for investors: 10K visas (apart from the 140K above).

Merit-based system
Track 1
-Replaces the DV
-120,000 visas
-Kicks-in on the 5th FY after bill is passed
-Points-based with two tiers: high skill and low skill

Track 2
-No cap specified
-Backlog reduction program only if visa not assigned within 5 years
-FY 2015 to 2021: used for EB and FB backlog clearance. This includes FB-3 and 4 prior to enactment. 1/7th of the backlog cleared in every FY.
-FY 2022 and 2023: used for FB-3 and 4 filed after enactment but before the programs expire.
-FY before 2029: Available for anyone who has been legally in the US for 10 years* (Note that RPIs would fit this definition by 2024)
-FY after 2029: Available for anyone who has been legally in the US, with work authorization, for 20 years*.

*There is clearly something missing in the bill, with a hanging "and", so these two may have additional conditions.

New non-immigrant categories
E-3 for Ireland - but note the requirement is only High School.
E-4 for any country that has an FTA with the U.S. - these would be similar to H1-B1.
W: Guest worker program for low skill jobs. Mobile cap that will be determined by a new Commisioner.
X: Non-immigrant version of the EB-6 visa
Y: Retiree visa (invest 500K in real state)

U visa is extended for victims of workplace violations (this is huge for abused H-1 employees)

H-1 and L-1 reform

Super complicated.

There are many reforms to the removal system, I hope no one here ever has the need to become interested in those

[gs1968]

Placeholder for Anchor Post

[vizcard]

Some initial thoughts (my interpretations) on legal EB immigration as of 4/19.

- EB (140K) and FB (226K+) remain with some modifications (Spec corrected my initial understanding here (http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showthread.php/2099-Senate-CIR-Bill-Summary-amp-Discussion?p=34789#post34789))
- Additonally there will be a 2-track, merit-based system (starting cap is 220k with provision to increase or decrease) SEE p.256 onwards
- Track 1 has two tiers SEE p. 256 - p.269.
- Track 2 has several sub-categories but I'm not sure of limits SEE p.269-p.274
- Visa re-capture and roll forward now permitted SEE p.276
- DV is gone but included in merit points system (but there is likely to be push back from minority groups eg CBC) SEE p.274
- Siblings are eliminated and dependents are re-classified SEE p.280-p.294
- There is NO increase in total visas is still 140k but because of exclusions of certain types of applicants this is a significant number (implication is that all categories will become C in more or less 2 yrs after enactment)
- Faster track for citizenship if you have work authorization for 10 yrs + GC (it is unclear if work authorization includes CPT/ OPT under F1).
- H1B caps have been raised to a min of 110k (can do up to 180k) + 25k for STEM graduates
- F1 is now a dual intent visa ie companies can apply for GC while you are on F1 status. (Not sure how this works)
- Visa stamping can be done inside the US (only for renewals)
- Severe restrictions on "body shops" (outplacement companies)


Major headwinds
- Potential costs (CBO still needs to weigh in)
- Border security
- Boston bombings
- Path to citizenship
- how do I put this delicately - influential a-holes! Grassley, Sessions, Cruz, Boehner

Major tailwinds
- Bi-lateral support in the Senate and House on concepts (execution is different story)
- Labor and Commerce backing
- Republicans NEED Hispanic vote

Timeline
- with the exception of merit visas everything goes in to effect FY15
- Senate wants to markup in May and vote in June
- unlikely to pass in FY13 (my opinion)

[rupen86]

Place Holder for Anchor Post

[Pedro Gonzales]

Placeholder for Anchor Post

Bill is here (http://www.schumer.senate.gov/forms/immigration.pdf)
Immigration and Naturalization Act is here (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.f6da51a2342135be7e9d7a10e0dc91a0/?vgnextoid=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190a RCRD&CH=act)
Summary from Fragomen is here (http://www.fragomen.com/newsresources/xprNewsDetailFrag.aspx?xpST=USAlerts&news=2087)

[qesehmk]

Summary Impact of CIR Bill on EB Immigration

Note - This was last updated on 21st April.

Revised Summary (for EB immigration reform in order of Importance).

1. Elimination of numerical cap for


Dependents
EB1-A & B & C
PHD in STEM
Doctors
Immediate Relatives Definition Expanded (All immediate relatives are exempt from numerical cap)


- Spouse and Children of GC holder will be exempt from numerical cap.

- The language of the bill makes it look like parent of GC holders could also be exempt from numerical cap. But not confirmed.

2. Country Cap

Country caps in EB are removed.
Country caps in FB are bumped to 15%.


3. Backlog Reduction

120K Visas will be available for four years in EB categories from a new merit based track. (see below)
Additionally the backlog as of the date when CIR will be effective will be divided into 7 pieces. And EB will receive additional of those 1/7th visas in each year between 2015-2021.
Additionally all unused EB visas since 1992-2013 will be recaptured and given to EB. (Spec / Others -- somebody needs to compute this).


4. Separate Merit based track

Diversity Visas (which were completely separate from EB visas) will be replaced by a Separate Merit Based Track visas.
Merit based system will be a point system (Points accrued on Education, Employment experience, Relevance of Education to Experience, Enterpreneurship, High Demand of Occupation, Civic Involvement, English Language Proficiency, Relation to Citizens, Country of Origin)
The cap will be 120K (instead of 55K for diversity).
Will feature increases at 5% per year if supply is 75% or lower compared to demand in this category.
Increases will stop after 250K total cap.
Merit based cap will keep increasing to 250K max as long as US unemployment is under 8.5% (this is quite funny since it barely exceeded 8.5% even under worst conditions in 2008-2009)
It will start in fifth year aimed at reducing backlog for first five years and then will be open to low skilled workers as well.
Will recapture unused visas from current year to next
Will kick in fifth year from creation. First four years will be used for EB backlog reduction.


5. Change in composition of visas as follows


EB1 - no quota - no limits
EB2 + EB3 w US degrees - 40% (New EB2)
EB3 - 40%
EB4 - 10%
EB5 - 10%
Additionally a startup visa category (may be part of EB5 - except that startup visa will be much less stringent on investment and jobs created)



Summary
This is a super duper bill that truly solves EB immigration problems not just for today but possibly for next decade (who knows what happens after a decade)!!

[abcx13]

Placeholder for Anchor Post by abcx13

[Spectator]

This document, created (http://www.schumer.senate.gov/forms/immigration.pdf) today on Sen Schumer's site may be the full text of the Bill.

It's a whopping 844 pages!!

[Spectator]

First thing i have seen relates to the Merit Based Visas.

The text says:


SEC. 2301. MERIT-BASED POINTS TRACK ONE.
(a) IN GENERAL.-
(1) WORLDWIDE LEVEL OF MERIT-BASED IMMIGRANTS.-

Section 201(e) (8 U.S.C. 1151(e)) is amended to read as follows:

(e) WORLDWIDE LEVEL OF MERIT-BASED IMMIGRANTS.

Section 201(e) is currently the Diversity Visa program.


(e) Worldwide level of diversity immigrants.-

So it does appear that the Merit Based system is an alternative to the Diversity Visa program.

Of course, I may find something more later on.

I also found:


‘‘(c) MERIT-BASED IMMIGRANTS.-

‘‘(1) FISCAL YEARS 1 THROUGH 4.-

For the first 4 fiscal years beginning after the date of enactment of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, the worldwide level of merit-based immigrant visas made available under section 201(e)(1) shall be available for aliens described in section 203(b)(3) and in addition to any visas available for such aliens under such section.

Section 203(b)(3) is better known to us as EB3. This seems to be a mechanism to speed up movement in EB3, since they have far more cases pending than EB2.

[gs1968]

To Spec
I think P.279 describes unused visa recapture between 1992 and 2013

[Spectator]

SEC. 2306. NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS ON INDIVIDUAL FOREIGN STATES.

removes the 7% limit for EB and increases it to 15% for FB.

[justvisiting]

OK. I read the relevant parts of the bill. Correct me if I´m wrong! This is what I think is going on:

-RPIs can adjust to LPR under a new section, 245C, but only after everyone in the backlog has been cleared. RPIs will be able to adjust to LPR only under the Merit based track two.

-Merit-based track 1: This is the points system. It has two Tiers. Really complicated. 120K visas assigned but can increase to 250K. Replaces the DV. The first five years of track 1 visas go to EB-3.

-Merit-based track 2: This is the backlog clearance system. There is NO CAP on the number of visas. (No way this survives). It has four subtracks.
-For anyone, whether EB or FB, who has a pending petition by the time of enactment, and has been waiting for 5 years, the visas will be assigned over 7 years. For example, of the 4M pending FB-4, 1/7th of that 4 million get a visa each year until the total has cleared. Same goes for EB-2/3.
-For those who have FB-4 petitions filed after enactment but before 2014 (when FB-4 expires), they have to wait until 2022, and would be cleared in two years.
-For anyone who has been lawfully present in the US for 10 years (this is for RPIs)
-For anyone who has been working legally for 20 years after 2029.

-Employment-based:
-EB1 gets exempted from the cap
-EB2 gets 40%, EB3 gets 40%, EB4 10% and EB5 10%
-Dependents get exempted
-Country caps removed
-Recapture of wasted visas since 1991
-PhD in any field exempted from the cap
-MD who finish waiver exempted
-EB2 is split into A and B. EB2-B is STEM masters. EB2-B is exempt from PERM and the Cap

[abcx13]

OK. I read the relevant parts of the bill. Correct me if I´m wrong! This is what I think is going on:

-Merit-based track 1: This is the points system. It has two Tiers. Really complicated. 120K visas assigned but can increase to 250K. Replaces the DV. The first five years of track 1 visas go to EB-3.

-Merit-based track 2: This is the backlog clearance system. There is NO CAP on the number of visas. (No way this survives). It has four subtracks.
-For anyone, whether EB or FB, who has a pending petition by the time of enactment, and has been waiting for 5 years, the visas will be assigned over 7 years. For example, of the 4M pending FB-4, 1/7th of that 4 million get a visa each year until the total has cleared. Same goes for EB-2/3.
-For those who have FB-4 petitions filed after enactment but before 2014 (when FB-4 expires), they have to wait until 2022, and would be cleared in two years.
-For anyone who has been lawfully present in the US for 10 years (this is the track for current illegals to get a GC 10 years from now).
-For anyone who has been working legally for 20 years after 2029.

-Employment-based:
-EB1 gets exempted from the cap
-EB2 gets 40%, EB3 gets 40%, EB4 10% and EB5 10%
-Dependents get exempted
-Country caps removed
-Recapture of wasted visas since 1991
-PhD in any field exempted from the cap
-MD who finish waiver exempted
-EB2 is split into A and B. EB2-B is STEM masters. EB2-B is exempt from PERM and the Cap

Holy cow! I guess *V was right about everything. EB2-B STEM includes MS for sure (sorry haven't had time to read full bill yet and the language gives me a headache anyway)? And is it US only? Great news if this passes. And it's exempt from PERM and cap!

I don't think EB guys could have asked for a better bill.

[kd2008]

Simply Amazing! Almost everything we wanted is there. It may not be the case for the final law but this is an amazing starting point.

My very stupid question is: To qualify for any of the cap exempt categories like PhD holders or Physicians, will we need to file another I-140?

Most likely yes and that would suck! But just a little. Next is how will USCIS ever gear up to handle all of this?

[vizcard]

The crappy thing is that the EB stuff is starting FY 2015....so no relief for FY13 or FY14 ... ergo folks with PD 2008 and early 2009 have no reason to celebrate.

[abcx13]

The crappy thing is that most of the EB stuff is starting FY 2015....so no relief for FY13 or FY14.

Hmm. That is somewhat crappy. I guess they don't expect to pass it by the start of this FY (i.e. FY14) in Sep/Oct.

[abcx13]

Just skimmed the relevant parts of the bill. Seems US STEM MS is exempt from the EB2 quota! Wonderful news if that goes through. I wonder if the 5 year is counted backwards from the PD or from I140 or I485 or what...?

Also FY 14 will be next Sep/Oct so I guess if this passes CO could take in a ton of applications in advance for pre-adjudication by making dates current temporarily and then retrogressing and processing in order of PD. Oh, and if Congress does manage to get this passed sooner than Sep/Oct, I guess the implementation date could be changed at the last minute to start this Sep/Oct instead of next.

One can dream can't one...

[vizcard]

Just skimmed the relevant parts of the bill. Seems US STEM MS is exempt from the EB2 quota! Wonderful news if that goes through. I wonder if the 5 year is counted backwards from the PD or from I140 or I485 or what...?

Also FY 14 will be next Sep/Oct so I guess if this passes CO could take in a ton of applications in advance for pre-adjudication by making dates current temporarily and then retrogressing and processing in order of PD. Oh, and if Congress does manage to get this passed sooner than Sep/Oct, I guess the implementation date could be changed at the last minute to start this Sep/Oct instead of next.

One can dream can't one...

That would indeed be a dream as there is enough backlog demand to not have to do that until atleast Q3...and even then it would be slow movement. Also, there is no incentive to make it retroactive to FY14.

[justvisiting]

Simply Amazing! Almost everything we wanted is there. It may not be the case for the final law but this is an amazing starting point.

My very stupid question is: To qualify for any of the cap exempt categories like PhD holders or Physicians, will we need to file another I-140?

Most likely yes and that would suck! But just a little. Next is how will USCIS ever gear up to handle all of this?

Yes. New I-140. But can self petition. Looks like EB-1B/C can also self petition, but how they do that without document support from the employer, is beyond me. The bill has many technical errors.

[iamdeb]

In the CIR full text,where do you see that "US STEM MS is exempt from the EB2 quota"?

[chengisk]

All that I see (Pg. 7) is,

"On the employment green card categories, the bill exempts the following categories from the annual numerical limits on employment-based immigrants: derivative beneficiaries of employment-based immigrants; aliens of extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics; outstanding professors and researchers; multinational executives and managers; doctoral degree holders in STEM field; and physicians who have completed the foreign residency requirements or have received a waiver."

I am assuming that the very next paragraph on the same page refers to STEM Master's degree holders with job offer. They have been allocated 40% of employment visas. Although the allocation is far far above what they have been getting it is still capped at 40%.

[vizcard]

In the CIR full text,where do you see that "US STEM MS is exempt from the EB2 quota"?

lines 19-25 on pg 304 and lines 1-14 on pg 305.

[justvisiting]

I have gone back an edited my summary. RPIs will be able to adjust to LPR only under the Merit based track two.

[Spectator]

Just skimmed the relevant parts of the bill. Seems US STEM MS is exempt from the EB2 quota! Wonderful news if that goes through. I wonder if the 5 year is counted backwards from the PD or from I140 or I485 or what...?

Also FY 14 will be next Sep/Oct so I guess if this passes CO could take in a ton of applications in advance for pre-adjudication by making dates current temporarily and then retrogressing and processing in order of PD. Oh, and if Congress does manage to get this passed sooner than Sep/Oct, I guess the implementation date could be changed at the last minute to start this Sep/Oct instead of next.

One can dream can't one...abcx,

It does appear that is the case from my reading as well.

Section 203(b) Preference Allocation for Employment-Based Immigrants


(b) Preference Allocation for Employment-Based Immigrants. - Aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 201(d) for employment-based immigrants in a fiscal year shall be allotted visas as follows:

becomes


(b) Preference Allocation for Employment-Based Immigrants. - Other than aliens described in paragraph (1) or (2)(B), aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 201(d) for employment-based immigrants in a fiscal year shall be allotted visas as follows:

Section 201(d) refers to


(d) Worldwide level of employment-based immigrants

(2)(B) refers to


(B) ADVANCED DEGREES IN A STEM FIELD-

(i) IN GENERAL.-- A qualified immigrant shall be admitted to the United States without respect to the worldwide level specified in section 201(d) if such immigrant-

(I) has earned a graduate degree at the level of master’s or higher in a field of science, technology, engineering, or mathematics from an accredited United States institution of higher education

(II) has an offer of employment from a United States employer in a field related to such degree; and ‘‘(III) earned the qualifying graduate degree within the 5 years immediately prior to the initial filing date of the petition under which the nonimmigrant is a beneficiary.




(1) Priority workers. - Visas shall first be made available in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (4) and (5), to qualified immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C):

becomes


(1) Aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs be admitted to the United States without respect to the worldwide level specified in section 201(d)

which is referring to EB1.

[vizcard]

Does the bill specify how they are going to handle current FB backlog for siblings?

on a separate note, I'd love to poll our forum readers to see how many will directly be impacted by this bill either in FB or EB.

[justvisiting]

Does the bill specify how they are going to handle current FB backlog for siblings?

on a separate note, I'd love to poll our forum readers to see how many will directly be impacted by this bill either in FB or EB.

Yes. Please see my summary above. Pending FbB-4 wii be able to get a "merit based immigrant visa" under the "merit based track two". Merit based track two has no numerical limit whatsoever.
If the FB-4 relative filed before the bill is adopted: They will have to wait between 1 and 7 years. (1/7th will be clear in each of the years 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021).
If the FB-4 relative filed after the bill was adopted but before the category expires in 2014: They will have to wait until 2022.

[justvisiting]

Just to expand on above, merit based has two tracks:
Track 1: Points system, with numerical limits
Track 2: No numerical limits
2-1: Those in EB pending for 5 or more years.---- 1/7th will be able to get a GC in each of 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021
2-2-A: Those in FB pending for 5 or more years (includes F1, F3 and F4. Remember F2 becomes IR) --- 1/7th will be able to get a GC in each of 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021
2-2-B: Those in FB-3 or 4 who file after the bill is adoptedbut before the category expires in Sept 30, 2014: 1/2 will get GC in 2022 and 1/2 in 2023.
2-3: Those who have been legally in the US for 10 years in 2023. This includes former "illegals" who get the provisional status. Presumably it could also include someone who was a nonimmigrant for 10 years (it only excludes the new W visas).

[vizcard]

What about naturalization ? I remember reading a NY Times article yesterday that they were going to reduce the 5 yrs post GC to 3 yrs. I skimmed through the doc but didn't find anything specific.

[anuran]

What about naturalization ? I remember reading a NY Times article yesterday that they were going to reduce the 5 yrs post GC to 3 yrs. I skimmed through the doc but didn't find anything specific.

The naturalization aspect is modified thus in the new document on Pg. 109:
. Any lawful permanent resident who was lawfully present in the United States and eligible for work authorization for not less than 10 years before becoming a lawful permanent resident may be naturalized upon compliance with all the requirements under this title except the provisions of section 316(a)(1) if such person, immediately preceding the date on which the person filed an application for naturalization
. ‘‘(1) has resided continuously within the United States, after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, for at least 3 years;
. ‘‘(2) during the 3-year period immediately preceding such filing date, has been physically present in the United States for periods totaling at least 50 percent of such period; and
. ‘‘(3) has resided within the State or in the jurisdiction of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services field office in the United States in which the applicant filed such application for at least 3 months.’’.

It was originally as below:
(a) No person, except as otherwise provided in this title, shall be naturalized, unless such applicant, (1) immediately preceding the date of filing his application for naturalization has resided continuously, after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, within the United States for at least five years and during the five years immediately preceding the date of filing his application has been physically present therein for periods totaling at least half of that time, and who has resided within the State or within the district of the Service in the United States in which the applicant filed the application for at least three months, (2) has resided continuously within the United States from the date of the application up to the time of admission to citizenship, (3) during all the periods referred to in this subsection has been and still is a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.

[abcx13]

The naturalization aspect is modified thus in the new document on Pg. 109:
. Any lawful permanent resident who was lawfully present in the United States and eligible for work authorization for not less than 10 years before becoming a lawful permanent resident may be naturalized upon compliance with all the requirements under this title except the provisions of section 316(a)(1) if such person, immediately preceding the date on which the person filed an application for naturalization
. ‘‘(1) has resided continuously within the United States, after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, for at least 3 years;
. ‘‘(2) during the 3-year period immediately preceding such filing date, has been physically present in the United States for periods totaling at least 50 percent of such period; and
. ‘‘(3) has resided within the State or in the jurisdiction of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services field office in the United States in which the applicant filed such application for at least 3 months.’’.

It was originally as below:
(a) No person, except as otherwise provided in this title, shall be naturalized, unless such applicant, (1) immediately preceding the date of filing his application for naturalization has resided continuously, after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, within the United States for at least five years and during the five years immediately preceding the date of filing his application has been physically present therein for periods totaling at least half of that time, and who has resided within the State or within the district of the Service in the United States in which the applicant filed the application for at least three months, (2) has resided continuously within the United States from the date of the application up to the time of admission to citizenship, (3) during all the periods referred to in this subsection has been and still is a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.

Interesting. I missed that. So if I am interpreting correctly, you can get merit based GC after 10 yrs and then citizenship after 3 years? Even for an EB applicant? That is good b/c it caps road to citizenship at 13 years and 10 for GC. I'd prefer it was 5+5 (instead of 10 + 3) but I guess something is better than nothing.

[Spectator]

Interesting. I missed that. So if I am interpreting correctly, you can get merit based GC after 10 yrs and then citizenship after 3 years? Even for an EB applicant? That is good b/c it caps road to citizenship at 13 years and 10 for GC. I'd prefer it was 5+5 (instead of 10 + 3) but I guess something is better than nothing.abcx,

On page 266 you might want to look at this clause under Merit Based, Track 1:


‘‘(8) INELIGIBILITY OF ALIENS WITH PENDING OR APPROVED PETITIONS.—

An alien who has a petition pending or approved in another immigrant category under this section or section 201 may not apply for a merit-based immigrant visa.

It sounds like you can't be both an EB or FB applicant AND apply for a Merit Based visa.

Read it and judge for yourself. By the way, Section 201 - WORLDWIDE LEVEL OF IMMIGRATION covers both FB and EB.

[justvisiting]

abcx,

On page 266 you might want to look at this clause under Merit Based, Track 1:



It sounds like you can't be both an EB or FB applicant AND apply for a Merit Based visa.

Read it and judge for yourself. By the way, Section 201 - WORLDWIDE LEVEL OF IMMIGRATION covers both FB and EB.

This is true for Track 1. But not for track 2. You can be a merit-based applicant in track 2. (Which is actually specifically designed for EB and FB backlogs, as well as for legalized immigrants.

The citizenship part, the way I read it, is not restrcited to merit based applicants. Anyone who is in the US legally with work authorization for 10 years when becoming a PR can apply for citizenship after 3 years. For example:
F-1 student for 4 years (with work authorization, for example, for on-campus work), then H-1B for 6, then GC. Or, legalized aimmigrant after waiting 10 years to apply for GC.

[vizcard]

So let me offer two cases and I'd like your interpretation.

Case 1 - F1 for 4, H1 for 9 (renewals based on approved 140), then GC before FY15 -> Citizenship in ??
Case 2 - F1 for 4, H1 for 9, GC FY15 or later -> Citizenship in ??

[justvisiting]

So let me offer two cases and I'd like your interpretation.

Case 1 - F1 for 4, H1 for 9 (renewals based on approved 140), then GC before FY15 -> Citizenship in ??
Case 2 - F1 for 4, H1 for 9, GC FY15 or later -> Citizenship in ??

If the F1 had work authorization for at least one year, it would appear the answer to both questions would be citizenship in 3 years.

[rupen86]

Good question. I don't know the answer. In my case, that would definitely shorten the time to citizenship (one can dream!) but only if F1 counts.

House praises Senate bill - http://thehill.com/homenews/house/294437-secretive-house-group-breaks-silence-to-praise-senate-immigration-bill

Just to make sure, with this bill, we are not expecting to rely on merit track, right? I believe with Recapture, Per country elimination, not counting dependents etc, everything should be current within 1 year. Am I right ?

[abcx13]

Just to make sure, with this bill, we are not expecting to rely on merit track, right? I believe with Recapture, Per country elimination, not counting dependents etc, everything should be current within 1 year. Am I right ?

Without knowing actual numbers for recapture, I would hazard a guess - yes. At least for EB2. I'm not so sure for EB3 - I doubt it. Paging Spec!

Though it's also not clear how recaptured visas get allocated. Do the get allocated to the first year and then keep rolling forward until they are used up? And BTW, is there a provision to roll forward unused visas from here on out?

[gc_soon]

Sorry guys for a basic question,
If CIR passes, when will the effect take place. Couple of comments seem to mention FY 2015 (i.e Oct 2014).
I was looking at Ron's comments, he seems to suggest that only recapture will start from FY 2015, other provisions of the bill will be active as soon as the bill is signed.
http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20720&page=8

"Initially, as soon as the bill is signed, we will see a bump of at least 40,000 visas for EB2 and EB3. In practical terms, this is more like 84,000 since dependents are no longer counted against the quota. That, in turn, will move priority dates forward significantly. Next October (2014), with recapture taking effect, there will be enough visas to wipe out the EB backlog in its entirety and make sure that it remains "current" for years into the future."

[druvraj]

Was wondering if there was any provision for legals after their GC(EB1-2-3) to get citizenship in less than 5 years? I guess the dreamers get their citizenship immediately in 5 years. Also for the illegals after they get their GCs, Citizenship in 3 years. I guess there has to be a provision for legals to get citizenship in 3 years as well. what do u think?

[vizcard]

Without knowing actual numbers for recapture, I would hazard a guess - yes. At least for EB2. I'm not so sure for EB3 - I doubt it. Paging Spec!

Though it's also not clear how recaptured visas get allocated. Do the get allocated to the first year and then keep rolling forward until they are used up? And BTW, is there a provision to roll forward unused visas from here on out?

Recaptured visas get added to the top of EB (similar to how FB gets added to EB today). Rollover is in there too. Ofcourse all this becomes effective 2015. All of that is explained on page 277.

[chengisk]

@druvraj -
There is some info on the previous page of this thread wrt citizenship in 3 years.
However, it seems like 3 years is for those who have been working in the US for the past 10 years.

[justvisiting]

Without knowing actual numbers for recapture, I would hazard a guess - yes. At least for EB2. I'm not so sure for EB3 - I doubt it. Paging Spec!

Though it's also not clear how recaptured visas get allocated. Do the get allocated to the first year and then keep rolling forward until they are used up? And BTW, is there a provision to roll forward unused visas from here on out?

Recaptured visas start FY2014. They rollover. Any watsed visas in the future are also rolled over.

EB-3 gets 120K visas from the very moment the bill is passed. After 5 years, these 120K become Merit Based Track 1.

I would think everyone gets current right away.

[rupen86]

Without knowing actual numbers for recapture, I would hazard a guess - yes. At least for EB2. I'm not so sure for EB3 - I doubt it. Paging Spec!

Though it's also not clear how recaptured visas get allocated. Do the get allocated to the first year and then keep rolling forward until they are used up? And BTW, is there a provision to roll forward unused visas from here on out?

Running on yesterday's numbers, EB2/3 will get around 85k. EB3's inventory till 2007 is well known which is around 44k. That leaves around 40k more to be allocated. I would say within 1 year without Recapture, EB3 should go to 2008. With Recapture, kicking in 2015, it should make everything current. I am assuming recapture number is significant.

[rupen86]

Recaptured visas start FY2014. They rollover. Any watsed visas in the future are also rolled over.

EB-3 gets 120K visas from the very moment the bill is passed. After 5 years, these 120K become Merit Based Track 1.

I would think everyone gets current right away.

Bill mentioned recaptured visa to start from FY 2015 not 2014.

[justvisiting]

rupen, thanks for pointing out my mistake. Now that I look at it again, I don't see the rollover provision... maybe I'm missing something? I aslo noticed FB is reduced from 226K to 161K. (The 65K they took from FB-4).

[seahawks2012]

I read through some of the earlier posts about path to citizenship for legal immigrants (thank you everyone who actually took the effort of reading the bill).
Few questions about path to citizenship for EB:

1. Is it safe to assume the citizenship text changes is applicable to EB category as well (essentially beyond just merit based)?

2. Does F1 "work-authorization" counts? If yes, only the time period of OPT or does the 20-hour per week temp authorization that all F1's get also counted for the 10 year mark?

[Spectator]

Running on yesterday's numbers, EB2/3 will get around 85k. EB3's inventory till 2007 is well known which is around 44k. That leaves around 40k more to be allocated. I would say within 1 year without Recapture, EB3 should go to 2008. With Recapture, kicking in 2015, it should make everything current. I am assuming recapture number is significant.rupen,

Yesterday I referred to a figure of at least 120k for EB2. The 85k referred to the number available to EB2-IC and before the text was published.

I think EB3 get rather more than that.

a) The dependent ratio is slightly higher for EB3, so the increase to 56k probably equates to 125k.
b) Merit Track 1 visas (this is a biggie!)


‘(c) MERIT-BASED IMMIGRANTS.—

(1) FISCAL YEARS 1 THROUGH 4.—

For the first 4 fiscal years beginning after the date of enactment of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, the worldwide level of merit-based immigrant visas made available under section 201(e)(1) (that is 120k under Merit-Based Points Track One) shall be available for aliens described in section 203(b)(3) (that is EB3 - (3) Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers.- ) and in addition to any visas available for such aliens under such section.

Can you check that is correct and that I have understood correctly, please.

I don't know if anyone else noticed, but the cap on Other Workers (currently 5k) is removed.

[vizcard]

Recaptured visas start FY2014. They rollover. Any watsed visas in the future are also rolled over.

EB-3 gets 120K visas from the very moment the bill is passed. After 5 years, these 120K become Merit Based Track 1.

I would think everyone gets current right away.

This is not true. Everything related to EB is effective FY2015 (which for all intents and purposes) is the next fiscal year after the bill is enacted.


I read through some of the earlier posts about path to citizenship for legal immigrants (thank you everyone who actually took the effort of reading the bill).
Few questions about path to citizenship for EB:

1. Is it safe to assume the citizenship text changes is applicable to EB category as well (essentially beyond just merit based)?

2. Does F1 "work-authorization" counts? If yes, only the time period of OPT or does the 20-hour per week temp authorization that all F1's get also counted for the 10 year mark?

1. Yes
2. The "spirit" of the word indicates that OPT would be included but from an execution standpoint its a matter of can USCIS (or whatever their new name is) connect OPT/CPT with H1B.

[justvisiting]

Seahawks, the bill is silent on your 2nd question, and if passed, this would be left up to the regulations or to litigation.

On your 1st question, most EB would still have to go through the 5 year LPR requirement to beocme a citizen, the exception being those authorized to work for 10 years before beocming LPRs.

[justvisiting]

viz,
I was wrong about FY2014 for recapture. It is FY2015. But the 120K to EB-3 are right away. See the bill at page 258, line 11

[vizcard]

viz,
I was wrong about FY2014 for recapture. It is FY2015. But the 120K to EB-3 are right away. See the bill at page 258, line 11

Not sure where you see EB3 specifically. It says Merit-based. Those apply to EB2 (a subset) and EB3.

[justvisiting]

Not sure where you see EB3 specifically. It says Merit-based. Those apply to EB2 (a subset) and EB3.

See Spec's post above. The section I pointed out specifically says that fiscal years 1 through 4 of merit-bassed visasgo to immigrants under setion 203(b)(3). Section 203(b)(3) is Eb-3.

[justvisiting]

By the way, the reason I think they are setting aisde the first 4 years of merit-bassed visas to EB-3 is to give USCIS plenty of time to come up with regulations for the point-based system, which kicks off in the 5th year after enactment. In the meantime, people can avail themselves of EB-3.

[rupen86]

See Spec's post above. The section I pointed out specifically says that fiscal years 1 through 4 of merit-bassed visasgo to immigrants under setion 203(b)(3). Section 203(b)(3) is Eb-3.

Does it mean that around 120k as per the numbers Spec had run for Eb3 + 120k more from merit based ? so around 240k in the FY2014 for EB3 ?

[Spectator]

Does it mean that around 120k as per the numbers Spec had run for Eb3 + 120k more from merit based ? so around 240k in the FY2014 for EB3 ?rupen,

So it seems.

It's all too good to be true, isn't it. The House version might not be quite so generous.

I don't know what a revised figure for EB2 would be, because I have no info on the potential numbers who could take advantage of the Doctorate and US STEM Masters provisions and how long it would take them to do so.

[rupen86]

From Oh Law firm,
04/17/2013: H-4 Spouse EAD Administrative Fix Proposal and CIR Legislative Proposal

After reading the CIR bill, we wonder whether this bill has caused the USCIS proposed rule on the subject in limbo at the OMB. The H-4 EAD proposal is very narrow in both the administrative option and legislative option. For the USCIS proposal, it is narrowly applied to the H-4 spouse only when the H-1B primary spouse has been in green card journey and is available for either 7th year H-1B extension or 104(c) three-year increment extensions pending green card proceedings. The H-4 spouse EAD proposal in the CIR appears to be very narrow as well in that unless their home country immigration law allows a similar benefit to the spouse of the American worker in their countires, this option will also not available to the involved H-4 spouses in this country.
We have not checked with the Indian immigration law relating to the subject of present interest, but a visitor forwarded the following information to this reporter, which was very information and educating to the reporter. Indian immigration law experts may send this report their comments on the subject. "The work visa for H4 will be allowed only if the country from where the applicant came from allows work permit for spouses. This is so much confusing and complicated as each country has their own way of dealing with it. For India we have visa "X" for spouses and in India if the spouse can prove that he/she is highly skilled and have a job offer of more than $25,000K per annum, they will issue a work permit. In India getting a job is not at all difficult and is unlike the red tapes we have here in US. But interpreting the India laws can in effect mean that India does not allow work permit."
For this matter, we want to solicit participation of immigrants from all different countries in discussion of their immigration laws on this subject. Believe it or not, there are many immigrants and visitors who are familiary with their immigration laws in their home countries. Please share your knowledge with your colleague immigrants in this country.

[vizcard]

rupen,

So it seems.

It's all too good to be true, isn't it. The House version might not be quite so generous.

I don't know what a revised figure for EB2 would be, because I have no info on the potential numbers who could take advantage of the Doctorate and US STEM Masters provisions and how long it would take them to do so.

Does fiscal years 1-4 mean FY14 to FY17 of FY15-18. It says for "after date of enactment"...not quite clear to me.

IF EB3 is 120K+ what is EB2 ? All categories should become current immediately with those numbers. Why wait 5 yrs for the merit system then

[Jagan01]

rupen,

Yesterday I referred to a figure of at least 120k for EB2. The 85k referred to the number available to EB2-IC and before the text was published.

I think EB3 get rather more than that.

a) The dependent ratio is slightly higher for EB3, so the increase to 56k probably equates to 125k.
b) Merit Track 1 visas (this is a biggie!)



Can you check that is correct and that I have understood correctly, please.

I don't know if anyone else noticed, but the cap on Other Workers (currently 5k) is removed.


Hi spec,

I need to know your interpretation of this statement.
What is the meaning of "initial petition" when a person ports date from Emp A to Emp B
1. First approved PERM petition with Employer A
2. First approved I-140 petition with Employer A
3. Current approved PERM petition with Employer B
4. Current approved I-140 with Employer B (with date ported)

Which of the above petition date is it talking about.

It is very unclear whether many of us who graduated in 2004/2005/2006 qualify or not... Your inputs greatly appreciated...

[justvisiting]

Does fiscal years 1-4 mean FY14 to FY17 of FY15-18. It says for "after date of enactment"...not quite clear to me.

IF EB3 is 120K+ what is EB2 ? All categories should become current immediately with those numbers. Why wait 5 yrs for the merit system then

There are two merit based systems. Perhaps that's what your missing? Merits-based points system is for future immigration, not current backlogs. The other merit-based track, "track two" is for backlogs and those legalized, and kicks in in FY2015.

[vizcard]

There are two merit based systems. Perhaps that's what your missing? Merits-based points system is for future immigration, not current backlogs. The other merit-based track, "track two" is for backlogs and those legalized, and kicks in in FY2015.

yup..thats it..thanks.

[Jagan01]

what does the "initial filing date" mean in the following sentence " "earned the qualifying graduate degree within the 5 years immediately prior to the initial filing of the petition under which the non-immigrant is a beneficiary"..."

The question is for people porting dates from EB3-EB2.
1. initial date of PERM filing with emp 1
2. initial date of I-140 filing with emp 1
3. initial date of PERM filing with emp 2
4. initial date of I-140 filing with emp 2 (successful porting done)

[justvisiting]

what does the "initial filing date" mean in the following sentence " "earned the qualifying graduate degree within the 5 years immediately prior to the initial filing of the petition under which the non-immigrant is a beneficiary"..."

The question is for people porting dates from EB3-EB2.
1. initial date of PERM filing with emp 1
2. initial date of I-140 filing with emp 1
3. initial date of PERM filing with emp 2
4. initial date of I-140 filing with emp 2 (successful porting done)

None of the above. It would be within 5 years before filing the new I-140 to be classified under EB2-B

[rupen86]

yup..thats it..thanks.

It says after bill enactment date, first 4 fiscal years. It does not say 2015. So, if bill is enacted before Oct, first fiscal year should be FY 2014. If bill is not enacted by Oct, first fiscal year could be FY 2015. This is my interpretation.

[vizcard]

Does it mean that around 120k as per the numbers Spec had run for Eb3 + 120k more from merit based ? so around 240k in the FY2014 for EB3 ?


It says after bill enactment date, first 4 fiscal years. It does not say 2015. So, if bill is enacted before Oct, first fiscal year should be FY 2014. If bill is not enacted by Oct, first fiscal year could be FY 2015. This is my interpretation.

So its unlikely that there's going to be any benefit for 2014

[Jagan01]

None of the above. It would be within 5 years before filing the new I-140 to be classified under EB2-B

Why do you say so? What makes you think it is the I-140 filing date for the new petition.

Also what would be the incentive to have special restrictions for 5 years.

If what you are saying is true, then people will go back to their original employers... that way it will be faster... since the original petition is always open...

[Spectator]

So its unlikely that there's going to be any benefit for 2014viz,

Why so glum?

I'm not sure why you say that.

EB2 would still likely get the equivalent of about 120k in the first FY after enactment. The vast majority of those would go to EB2-I, since per Country limits would not apply.

[justvisiting]

Why do you say so? What makes you think it is the I-140 filing date for the new petition.

Also what would be the incentive to have special restrictions for 5 years.

If what you are saying is true, then people will go back to their original employers... that way it will be faster... since the original petition is always open...

Probably true. The law is written not thinking about those in backlogs, but thinking about future immigrants. Also,not any STEM degree will work, it has to be from a "United States doctoral institution". From a practical standpoint, USCIS has to review your credentials. The bill itself says that an I-140 will be necessary (the law, and this bill, does not use the term I-140, they call it petition to accord immigrant status or petition under section 204).

[seahawks2012]

About the per country cap limits, this is what I could find from the bill:

1. The limit got increased from 7% to 15%
2. The new limit will be effective 1 year after the enactment of the bill into a law

See:
>> SEC. 2306. NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS ON INDIVIDUAL FOREIGN STATES
>> (a) Numerical Limitation to Any Single Foreign State
>> (4) by striking `7' and inserting `15'; and
>> (d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

[Spectator]

About the per country cap limits, this is what I could find from the bill:

1. The limit got increased from 7% to 15%
2. The new limit will be effective 1 year after the enactment of the bill into a law

See:
>> SEC. 2306. NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS ON INDIVIDUAL FOREIGN STATES
>> (a) Numerical Limitation to Any Single Foreign State
>> (4) by striking `7' and inserting `15'; and
>> (d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.seahawks,

You missed:


Section 202(a)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(2)) is amended—

(1) in the paragraph heading, by striking ‘‘AND EMPLOYMENT-BASED’’;

which means it does not apply to EB.

[rupen86]

So its unlikely that there's going to be any benefit for 2014

If bill is enacted before October, why would not first fiscal year be 2014 ?

[Jagan01]

[QUOTE=justvisiting;34662]Probably true. The law is written not thinking about those in backlogs, but thinking about future immigrants. Also,not any STEM degree will work, it has to be from a "United States doctoral institution". From a practical standpoint, USCIS has to review your credentials. The bill itself says that an I-140 will be necessary (the law, and this bill, does not use the term I-140, they call it petition to accord immigrant status or petition under section 204).[/QUOTE

Thanks for clarifying that PERM is not a petition. PERM is an application. So it has to be I-140 petition.

However, if it was only for the current employers I-140 petition then what was the need to mention "initial filing date of the petition". The term "initial" seems to suggest that there can be multiple petitions and the initial one is considered. KJust like priority dates.

Also the 5 years make much more sense if they are talking about the initial I-140 petition. Once a beneficiary has an approved I-140 before he runs out of H1 time then he/she can get unlimited extensions. H1 time is 6 years. I think the 5 will be changed to 6.

[vizcard]

viz,

Why so glum?

I'm not sure why you say that.

EB2 would still likely get the equivalent of about 120k in the first FY after enactment. The vast majority of those would go to EB2-I, since per Country limits would not apply.


If bill is enacted before October, why would not first fiscal year be 2014 ?

I said "unlikely" as I don't believe the bill will be enacted by Sep-end. It has to go thru the Senate (may/June timeframe), read/discussed in the House, edited (almost guaranteed) and then voted (and hopefully passed) and then re-voted in the Senate. You also have summer recess which is pretty much all of August.

I hope I'm wrong but I don't see this going thru by FY13 end ergo first fiscal year will not be FY14. Sorry for being a "gloomy gus". Like I posted this AM, I don't see CIR affecting anyone with PDs mid 2008 - early 2009. It will be business as usual for them as far as GC.

[derekjbj]

Is the following an accurate assessment?


CIR is highly favorable for EB applicants currently in the queue. Right now, it appears that EB STEM will have a cake walk in terms of getting GC, but the devil is in the details. You will need a H1-B in order to even apply for EB STEM GC
Face it, with all the restrictions on H1-B in CIR, and with 100,000+ new "american" workers ( current EB queue) poised to enter the work force in a few years, securing a H1-B with all the restrictions, will be a nightmare.
Unless, you are the best of the best, it will be hard. the reasons are as follows

1) The desi consulting business model will be bust, denying the H1-B route that many Indian Masters STEM students take
2) Major Indian outsourcing models will be bust, hence denying minor desi consultants the "projects" to supply Masters H1-B.
3) It will be very tough for a legit businesses to prove that they need H1-B, especially when there are 100,000 new "american" workers (current EB queue)

This will result in
1) Major tech firms cherry picking talent, meaning, only the best of the best will survive into a H1-B


I doubt, if even 65,000 H1-Bs will be filled from fiscal 2015.

Tough time ahead for Indian STEM Master's students unless you are the best of the best, which is what US EB system was in most of the 90s, prior to the IT outsourcing revolution in the late 90s resulting in the EB - backlog mess we are in today.

[bvsamrat]

My take is : Whether passed or not, ongoing debate will have effect on new PERMS/new I-140s and hence also would change COs thinking.
Unless something happens and CIR has absolutely without any chance.

Even EB1 applications may drop in next few months, as the companies might want to wait to see if their candidates can be pushed through limitless EB2 band wagon next year or so.

Any major immigration bill even under discussion would be ripple effects right from now







I said "unlikely" as I don't believe the bill will be enacted by Sep-end. It has to go thru the Senate (may/June timeframe), read/discussed in the House, edited (almost guaranteed) and then voted (and hopefully passed) and then re-voted in the Senate. You also have summer recess which is pretty much all of August.

I hope I'm wrong but I don't see this going thru by FY13 end ergo first fiscal year will not be FY14. Sorry for being a "gloomy gus". Like I posted this AM, I don't see CIR affecting anyone with PDs mid 2008 - early 2009. It will be business as usual for them as far as GC.

[justvisiting]

Even EB1 applications may drop in next few months, as the companies might want to wait to see if their candidates can be pushed through limitless EB2 band wagon next year or so.

Not sure what limitless bandwagon you are talking about. There are some pretty strict rules as to what kind of STEM masters degree qualifies. It has to be from one of the best research universities in the country.

[rupen86]

I said "unlikely" as I don't believe the bill will be enacted by Sep-end. It has to go thru the Senate (may/June timeframe), read/discussed in the House, edited (almost guaranteed) and then voted (and hopefully passed) and then re-voted in the Senate. You also have summer recess which is pretty much all of August.

I hope I'm wrong but I don't see this going thru by FY13 end ergo first fiscal year will not be FY14. Sorry for being a "gloomy gus". Like I posted this AM, I don't see CIR affecting anyone with PDs mid 2008 - early 2009. It will be business as usual for them as far as GC.

Yes, if it does not pass by October, seems 120k won't be available for the entire year. I do not know why bill is written that way where one month delay in passing the bill could result in one year delay in implementation. I am hoping the bill would pass before October. Some of the earlier articles suggested it should pass before August recess otherwise it could meet with same protests in town-hall meetings like Obamacare and would force lawmakers to change their stand.

[bvsamrat]

Is the numbers are trippled and clears all backlog of last 10 years. Where the future demand would come from in coming years? Companies and consultants will be searching for applicants. May be - same reason for H1B reaching cap again so early this year unlike last 2 years. Getting ready to be in right position for the changes!



Not sure what limitless bandwagon you are talking about. There are some pretty strict rules as to what kind of STEM masters degree qualifies. It has to be from one of the best research universities in the country.

[vizcard]

Is the numbers are trippled and clears all backlog of last 10 years. Where the future demand would come from in coming years? Companies and consultants will be searching for applicants. May be - same reason for H1B reaching cap again so early this year unlike last 2 years. Getting ready to be in right position for the changes!

Please consider reposting with proper sentences. Its hard to figure out what you are saying. If I understand correctly, you are talking about clearing backlog vs future demand and then h1b visas? I'm not sure what the connections but I'll try to respond.

1. Previous backlog has got nothing to do with future demand. Using the current demographics, primary demand will remain fairly flat albeit the mix will change from higher % of EB3 to more EB1s and STEM MS/PhD EB2s. The increase in future demand will come from potential illegals and Dreamers along with the increased H1B cap (<45K).

2. This year's H1B usage is a direct result of hiring patterns. It's got nothing to do with immigration rules. The employment market is robust for skilled workers and therefore more H1b applicants. Ofcourse this will increase GC applications but this is like any other year.

[rupen86]

Is the following an accurate assessment?


CIR is highly favorable for EB applicants currently in the queue. Right now, it appears that EB STEM will have a cake walk in terms of getting GC, but the devil is in the details. You will need a H1-B in order to even apply for EB STEM GC
Face it, with all the restrictions on H1-B in CIR, and with 100,000+ new "american" workers ( current EB queue) poised to enter the work force in a few years, securing a H1-B with all the restrictions, will be a nightmare.
Unless, you are the best of the best, it will be hard. the reasons are as follows

1) The desi consulting business model will be bust, denying the H1-B route that many Indian Masters STEM students take
2) Major Indian outsourcing models will be bust, hence denying minor desi consultants the "projects" to supply Masters H1-B.
3) It will be very tough for a legit businesses to prove that they need H1-B, especially when there are 100,000 new "american" workers (current EB queue)

This will result in
1) Major tech firms cherry picking talent, meaning, only the best of the best will survive into a H1-B


I doubt, if even 65,000 H1-Bs will be filled from fiscal 2015.

Tough time ahead for Indian STEM Master's students unless you are the best of the best, which is what US EB system was in most of the 90s, prior to the IT outsourcing revolution in the late 90s resulting in the EB - backlog mess we are in today.

I kind of agree. With more restrictive H1 language, staffing companies both in US as well as outsourcing companies will be in tough position and may not do H1. It might be easier to get green card but harder to get H1.

[ggk189]

It is heartening to see a bill. A question on interpretation

In the bill for US STEM there is a phrase "US Institute of Doctoral Research" on page 306 ... classified by " (II) was classified by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching on January 1, 2012, as a doctorate-granting university with a very high or high level of
research activity

Queried the carnegie list for universitites and it gives univeristy name and location, does the location of university matters in the interpretation of the list. If master,s is completed from a different campus of same university will it be counted.

[vizcard]

It is heartening to see a bill. A question on interpretation

In the bill for US STEM there is a phrase "US Institute of Doctoral Research" on page 306 ... classified by " (II) was classified by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching on January 1, 2012, as a doctorate-granting university with a very high or high level of
research activity

Queried the carnegie list for universitites and it gives univeristy name and location, does the location of university matters in the interpretation of the list. If master,s is completed from a different campus of same university will it be counted.

I think it matters because not all regional campuses are created equal. UCLA and UC-Berkeley are close in terms of reputation..The other UCs also have strong research program. But if you flip to the other coast, HUGE difference between Rutgers-New Brunswick campus and Rutgers-Newark campus.

[rupen86]

I kind of agree. With more restrictive H1 language, staffing companies both in US as well as outsourcing companies will be in tough position and may not do H1. It might be easier to get green card but harder to get H1.

In one of the articles, I saw that 30%, 50% and 70% are for H1, L1 employers where green card petition is not filed. So, if that is filed, it does not remain restrictive. Am I right or have I missed something?

[feedmyback]

That is correct I believe. That is how I understood it too. And when they say "Green card petition filed", I assume it is I-140.


In one of the articles, I saw that 30%, 50% and 70% are for H1, L1 employers where green card petition is not filed. So, if that is filed, it does not remain restrictive. Am I right or have I missed something?

[abcx13]

In one of the articles, I saw that 30%, 50% and 70% are for H1, L1 employers where green card petition is not filed. So, if that is filed, it does not remain restrictive. Am I right or have I missed something?

You are correct. One of the articles I posted mentioned that Facebook lobbied for that exclusion. Apparently 15% of FB employee's are on H1Bs.

[kiddo9256]

In one of the articles, I saw that 30%, 50% and 70% are for H1, L1 employers where green card petition is not filed. So, if that is filed, it does not remain restrictive. Am I right or have I missed something?

yep, in one of the links on this boards, this was referred as Facebook lobbied amendment. if you have application filed, it wont be counted against Visa dependent calculation.

now, some co's anyway apply GC/EB3 so they may get by just by pushing papers.

[Spectator]

I totally admit I have lost track of all the posts, so sorry if this repetition. If it is, let me know and I will delete the post.

I don't recall anyone mentioning the ability to re-validate visas in the USA and not have to travel for a visa stamping.

The section on page 666 seems to allow that for qualifying applicants.


(c) VISA REVALIDATION.—

Section 222(c) (8 U.S.C. 1202(c)) is amended—

(1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ before ‘‘Every alien’’;
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(2) The Secretary of State may, at the Secretary’s discretion, renew in the United States the visa of an alien admitted under subparagraph (A), (E), (G), (H), (I), (L), 11 (N), (O), (P), (R), or (W) section 101(a)(15) if the alien has remained eligible for such status and qualifies for a waiver of interview as provided for in subsection (h)(1)(D).’’.

[Spectator]

That is correct I believe. That is how I understood it too. And when they say "Green card petition filed", I assume it is I-140.feedmyback,

On page 686 it is defined as:


(f) INTENDING IMMIGRANTS DEFINED.—

Section 101(a) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(53)(A) The term ‘intending immigrant’ means, with respect to the number of aliens employed by an employer, an alien who intends to work and reside permanently in the United States, as evidenced by—

‘‘(i) for a covered employer, an approved application for a labor certification or an application that has been pending for longer than 1 year; or

‘‘(ii) a pending or approved immigrant status petition filed for such alien.

[qesehmk]

Spec - that's exactly what happened with me....

I guess what will be useful for everybody is for one or two among us need to take a lead and open a thread with static header that keeps updating on what the bill is and isn't.

My experience is that that is the best way to update people. Otherwise everybody gets completely lost in the discussion. Too much time spent on too little real information.

Wonder who are leaders / experts on this thread (of course other than you Spec) - Rupen? GS1968? ABCX? Justvisiting? Sorry if I missed somebody. But consider this style of updating people. Because over time all of our posts get lost except if you keep updating the headers.


I totally admit I have lost track of all the posts, ....

[abcx13]

Spec - that's exactly what happened with me....

I guess what will be useful for everybody is for one or two among us need to take a lead and open a thread with static header that keeps updating on what the bill is and isn't.

My experience is that that is the best way to update people. Otherwise everybody gets completely lost in the discussion. Too much time spent on too little real information.

Wonder who are leaders / experts on this thread (of course other than you Spec) - Rupen? GS1968? ABCX? Justvisiting? Sorry if I missed somebody. But consider this style of updating people. Because over time all of our posts get lost except if you keep updating the headers.

Good idea. Unfortunately I am no expert in interpreting legalese! I can keep a list of news links along with short snippets/summaries updated.

[abcx13]

I totally admit I have lost track of all the posts, so sorry if this repetition. If it is, let me know and I will delete the post.

I don't recall anyone mentioning the ability to re-validate visas in the USA and not have to travel for a visa stamping.

The section on page 666 seems to allow that for qualifying applicants.

Thanks Spec! I don't believe that was reported before and is great news indeed!

[vizcard]

I totally admit I have lost track of all the posts, so sorry if this repetition. If it is, let me know and I will delete the post.

I don't recall anyone mentioning the ability to re-validate visas in the USA and not have to travel for a visa stamping.

The section on page 666 seems to allow that for qualifying applicants.

I think it might be a chicken and egg issue for H1B/H4. Do you have to go overseas for the interview or do you have to interview because you are overseas?

[bvsamrat]

Sorry if I am misunderstood. But your reaction matches as reply to my post.

MHO- History and hence back log is very important for any future applicant and employer and also to the industry if needs to attract skilled workers.

As the number quota becomes high and clearing back log in matter of months due to CIR, expect that future demand will rise for sure.
It acts as catalyst to growth.
" skilled workers who earlier were not willing to wait for about 10 years will come back again"
Main AIM of CIR for legal workers is to improve demand for skilled workers and provide atractive environment and clearing backlog is the fist setp
somtimes this rise in demand(and hiring pattern) is proactive and not afterwards- This is what I am trying to say








Please consider reposting with proper sentences. Its hard to figure out what you are saying. If I understand correctly, you are talking about clearing backlog vs future demand and then h1b visas? I'm not sure what the connections but I'll try to respond.

1. Previous backlog has got nothing to do with future demand. Using the current demographics, primary demand will remain fairly flat albeit the mix will change from higher % of EB3 to more EB1s and STEM MS/PhD EB2s. The increase in future demand will come from potential illegals and Dreamers along with the increased H1B cap (<45K).

2. This year's H1B usage is a direct result of hiring patterns. It's got nothing to do with immigration rules. The employment market is robust for skilled workers and therefore more H1b applicants. Ofcourse this will increase GC applications but this is like any other year.

[Spectator]

I think it might be a chicken and egg issue for H1B/H4. Do you have to go overseas for the interview or do you have to interview because you are overseas?viz,

I didn't want to post huge excerpts.

You have to meet the requirements of


(d) INTERVIEW WAIVERS FOR LOW RISK VISA APPLICANTS.

It can also be found on page 666.

[feedmyback]

Ooh then even an approved labor or a pending labor for more than an year would do...No need to have I-140 filed or approved. Thanks Spec.

[rupen86]

viz,

I didn't want to post huge excerpts.

You have to meet the requirements of



It can also be found on page 666.

What does that mean? Can you explain whether people from India on h1 would qualify ?

[rupen86]

Good idea. Unfortunately I am no expert in interpreting legalese! I can keep a list of news links along with short snippets/summaries updated.

Someone needs to go through multiple pages here, prepare draft summary which designated people can update and discuss and finally be posted.

[jrkpsp]

bill explained from fragomen
http://www.fragomen.com/newsresources/xprNewsDetailFrag.aspx?xpST=USAlerts&news=2087

[qesehmk]

Pedro - I will wait till tomorrow before I create my spot - simply because I think there are quite a few others who have studied it better.
Following up on Q's suggestion, I suggest creating just 1 new thread and allowing each of the folks Q suggested (Spec, Rupen, GS1968, Justvisiting) and a few others (Q, vizcard, and I humbly include myself) to create place holders for their summary posts. Each of us can split and summarize the bill however we wish to. Once we think we are done, we can have a grand summary of the bill as it stands. Although the first step will get done in the next few days, it will be an ongoing exercise as amendments come in and are incorporated, and as the house bill is released.

Sound good?

If so, aforementioned subject matter experts, go hold your spot here: http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showthread.php/2099-CIR-Bill-Summary?p=34716#post34716

[derekjbj]

There is a popular theme running on trackitt right now. Someone brought up the point, that on the day after CIR passes, people currently on H1-B working on client site as consultants( belonging to all shades of consulting, big4, indian IT biggies, minor Indian IT consulting) will go into "out-of-status", as their work situation will be deemed illegal by CIR, due to violation of H1-B.
What do you guys think of this ?

[vizcard]

There is a popular theme running on trackitt right now. Someone brought up the point, that on the day after CIR passes, people currently on H1-B working on client site as consultants( belonging to all shades of consulting, big4, indian IT biggies, minor Indian IT consulting) will go into "out-of-status", as their work situation will be deemed illegal by CIR, due to violation of H1-B.
What do you guys think of this ?


fear mongering. what is the basis for being in violation?

[derekjbj]

fear mongering. what is the basis for being in violation?

The outplacement provision, that no H1-B can be placed at a third party site( consulting model)

[vizcard]

The outplacement provision, that no H1-B can be placed at a third party site( consulting model)

is there a provision in the bill. i've looked at it fairly closely and i haven't seen anything that makes that statement. Besides even they have something like they usually grandfather in existing folks.

[derekjbj]

is there a provision in the bill. i've looked at it fairly closely and i haven't seen anything that makes that statement. Besides even they have something like they usually grandfather in existing folks.

Check out Page 684 of CIR Bill, this is is for H1-B dependent employers. Most of the Indian IT consulting companies, big & small might be H1-B dependent.

(d) OUTPLACEMENT.—Section 212(n)(1)(F) (8
11 U.S.C. 1182(n)(1)(F)) is amended to read as follows:
12 ‘‘(F)(i) An H-1B-dependent employer may
13 not place, outsource, lease, or otherwise con14
tract for the services or placement of an H–1B
15 nonimmigrant employee.
16 ‘‘(ii) An employer that is not an H-1B-de17
pendent employer and not described in para18
graph (3)(A)(i) may not place, outsource, lease,
19 or otherwise contract for the services or place20
ment of an H–1B nonimmigrant employee un21
less the employer pays a fee of $500.
22 ‘‘(iii) A fee collected under clause (ii) shall
23 be deposited in the Comprehensive Immigration
24 Reform Trust Fund established under section 6
685
EAS13500 S.L.C.
1 of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity,
2 and Immigration Modernization Act.’’.

[vizcard]

Check out Page 684 of CIR Bill, this is is for H1-B dependent employers. Most of the Indian IT consulting companies, big & small might be H1-B dependent.

(d) OUTPLACEMENT.—Section 212(n)(1)(F) (8
11 U.S.C. 1182(n)(1)(F)) is amended to read as follows:
12 ‘‘(F)(i) An H-1B-dependent employer may
13 not place, outsource, lease, or otherwise con14
tract for the services or placement of an H–1B
15 nonimmigrant employee.
16 ‘‘(ii) An employer that is not an H-1B-de17
pendent employer and not described in para18
graph (3)(A)(i) may not place, outsource, lease,
19 or otherwise contract for the services or place20
ment of an H–1B nonimmigrant employee un21
less the employer pays a fee of $500.
22 ‘‘(iii) A fee collected under clause (ii) shall
23 be deposited in the Comprehensive Immigration
24 Reform Trust Fund established under section 6
685
EAS13500 S.L.C.
1 of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity,
2 and Immigration Modernization Act.’’.

"Outplacement" refers to placement agencies where the sponsoring company gets a cut of the h1bs pay. it does not apply to cases where the H1b is a real employee and gets paid a salary from the sponsoring company regardless of placement.

also, its illegal only if its a "h1b dependent company" otherwise the company needs to pay $500 per H1b employee.

[rupen86]

"Outplacement" refers to placement agencies where the sponsoring company gets a cut of the h1bs pay. it does not apply to cases where the H1b is a real employee and gets paid a salary from the sponsoring company regardless of placement.

also, its illegal only if its a "h1b dependent company" otherwise the company needs to pay $500 per H1b employee.

500 is not big amount. I do not know if it is one time amount or have to be paid regularly.

How is H1B dependent category defined? If filing PERM or I140 is the exemption, then that's what companies will do.

[vizcard]

500 is not big amount. I do not know if it is one time amount or have to be paid regularly.

How is H1B dependent category defined? If filing PERM or I140 is the exemption, then that's what companies will do.

pages 684 to 687 describe all of that. my brain is fried at this point to make sense of it.

[Spectator]

vizcard,

In you Summary on page 1, you say the following:


- EB is essentially being replaced by a 2-track, merit-based system (starting cap is 220k with provision to increase or decrease) SEE p.256 onwards

That is not my understanding.

Neither FB 203(a) or EB 203(b) are being replaced.

Instead the current Diversity Visa 201(e) & 203(c) is being replaced by the Merit Based system. The 120,000 visas are made up of a combination of the existing Diversity Visas (55,000) and the abolition of FB4 (65,000).

201(e) currently says:


(e) Worldwide level of diversity immigrants.- The worldwide level of diversity immigrants is equal to 55,000 for each fiscal year.

and is replaced (page 256) :


SEC. 2301. MERIT-BASED POINTS TRACK ONE.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—

6 (1) WORLDWIDE LEVEL OF MERIT-BASED IMMGRANTS.—

Section 201(e) (8 U.S.C. 1151(e)) is amended to read as follows:

‘‘(e) WORLDWIDE LEVEL OF MERIT-BASED IMMIGRANTS.—

etc

to become:


(e) WORLDWIDE LEVEL OF MERIT-BASED IMMIGRANTS.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—

(A) NUMERICAL LIMITATION.—

Subject to paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), the worldwide level of merit-based immigrants is equal to 120,000 for each fiscal year.

etc.

203(c) currently says:


(c) Diversity Immigrants. -

(1) In general. - Except as provided in paragraph (2), aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 201 (e) for diversity immigrants shall be allotted visas each fiscal year as follows:
etc.

The text on page 258 modifies that to become:


(c) MERIT-BASED IMMIGRANTS.—

(1) FISCAL YEARS 1 THROUGH 4.—

For the first 4 fiscal years beginning after the date of enactment of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, the worldwide level of merit-based immigrant visas made available under section 201(e)(1) shall be available for aliens described in section 203(b)(3) and in addition to any visas available for such aliens under such section.
etc.

Eventually, this section describes the requirement to qualify for a Merit Based visa.

In my mind, the Merit Based system is replacing the Diversity Visa (and includes provisions helpful to the FB4 Siblings Category eliminated from FB immigration).

[vizcard]

You are probably right. But I don't think its just a replacement for DV/F4 or inclusion of illegals. So if I understand correctly then, total numbers

EB - 140K
FB - 480K
Merit-based - 120K

Doesn't seem right. But maybe it is.

[Spectator]

You are probably right. But I don't think its just a replacement for DV/F4 or inclusion of illegals. So if I understand correctly then, total numbers

EB - 140K
FB - 480K
Merit-based - 120K

Doesn't seem right. But maybe it is.Vizcard,

My understanding is:

FB - Initially, the current minimum of 226k remains (and FB2A is gone), but this reduces to 161k 18 months after enactment as the FB4 visas are removed.

EB - 140,000 (plus 10,000 for EB6? - not sure how that works), but EB1 approvals no longer count against this number, together with EB2B.

Merit Based (Track One) - 120,000 which can rise as high as 250,000 over time (subject to conditions and demand), but not by more than 5% per year.

Another thing I noticed - EB2 now only gets Fall Down from EB5 automatically, not that it should matter. Mention of EB4 has been removed.


Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 40 percent of the worldwide level authorized in section 201(d), plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraph (5), to qualified immigrants who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent ........

EB4 now get any visas unused by EB3

EB5 now get any visas unused by EB4.

Overall, it becomes:

EB2 --> EB3 ---> EB4 ---> EB5
_^________________________ |
_|________________________ |
__-------------------------

[justvisiting]

Vizcard,


EB - 140,000 (plus 10,000 for EB6? - not sure how that works), but EB1 approvals no longer count against this number, together with EB2B.


Overall, it becomes:

EB2 --> EB3 ---> EB4 ---> EB5
_^________________________ |
_|________________________ |
__-------------------------


My reading of the INVEST Act part of the bill is that EB-6 lives in it´s own little world, with 10,000 visas that are not part of the 140K for EB, and that can't receive nor give spillover. It sure looks like it was copy-pasted into the bill and they did a cursory check to make sure it didn't conflict with anything else.

There are other technical errors in the bill for example, one section removes the FB-2A category making it IR, and reallocates those visas among FB-1, 2-B, 3 and 4. And then a subsequent section of the bill removes FB-3 and FB-4, making the prior section completely superfluous!

[Spectator]

My reading of the INVEST Act part of the bill is that EB-6 lives in it´s own little world, with 10,000 visas that are not part of the 140K for EB, and that can't receive nor give spillover. It sure looks like it was copy-pasted into the bill and they did a cursory check to make sure it didn't conflict with anything else.

There are other technical errors in the bill for example, one section removes the FB-2A category making it IR, and reallocates those visas among FB-1, 2-B, 3 and 4. And then a subsequent section of the bill removes FB-3 and FB-4, making the prior section completely superfluous!justvisiting,

I agree with you!

They create an EB6 Category and then don't tie it into the other EB legislation properly.

I think the problem with the FB side is that FB2A disappears immediately, but FB4 does not disappear for 18 months, so they have to have % for those first 18 months and then replace them with new ones when FB4 is no longer there.

Another classic is the definition of a "United States doctoral institution of higher education" in the EB2B section. That's all well and good, but that term is not actually used anywhere else in the document.

Yet another one is in Section 2302 (c)(3)(B) where the criteria appear incomplete because of the hanging "and"


(B) has been lawfully present in the United States for not less than 10 years; and

The next line is 2302 (d). Either there is no "and" or some text is missing.

I'm sure you have other examples as well.

Having said the above, it must have been a nightmare for the staff trying to write this document. I don't underestimate the task they had.

[qesehmk]

Friends ,

I have updated my header post http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showthread.php/2099-Senate-CIR-Bill-Summary-amp-Discussion?p=34767#post34767 . I am quite confident of what I have written there. But criticism is welcome!

[gs1968]

To Spec/Q/justvisiting & others

In your reading of the CIR Bill-do the Irish E-3 visa holders qualify for Green Cards either under the EB Program or merit track?
I feel like I did last year that it is unfair to single out certain nations for preferential treatment. Also does it have any changes to the TN visa?

[qesehmk]

gs1968 - my take on E3 Irish bill has always been that it was meant to disrupt then CIR talks rather than being a serious bill. I would be surprised if it is part of CIR now. I haven't come across it.

As per TN visas I didn't find anything that talks about TN.
To Spec/Q/justvisiting & others

In your reading of the CIR Bill-do the Irish E-3 visa holders qualify for Green Cards either under the EB Program or merit track?
I feel like I did last year that it is unfair to single out certain nations for preferential treatment. Also does it have any changes to the TN visa?

[Spectator]

To Spec/Q/justvisiting & others

In your reading of the CIR Bill-do the Irish E-3 visa holders qualify for Green Cards either under the EB Program or merit track?
I feel like I did last year that it is unfair to single out certain nations for preferential treatment. Also does it have any changes to the TN visa?
The E3 visa is a non-immigrant category, so I guess either option is open to them for an immigrant visa.


gs1968 - my take on E3 Irish bill has always been that it was meant to disrupt then CIR talks rather than being a serious bill. I would be surprised if it is part of CIR now. I haven't come across it.

As per TN visas I didn't find anything that talks about TN.Q,

Page 734.


SEC. 4403. E–VISA REFORM.

(a) NONIMMIGRANT CATEGORY.—

Section 101(a)(15)(E)(iii) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E)(iii)) is amended by inserting ‘‘, or solely to perform services as an employee and who has at least a high school education or its equivalent, or has, within 5 years, at least 2 years of work experience in an occupation which requires at least 2 years of training or experience if the alien is a national of the Republic of Ireland,’’ after ‘‘Australia’’.

[qesehmk]

Thanks Spec - in other words Irish people will get an H1B equivalent but non-immigrant work visa under CIR (just like australians). The max visas will be 10500 per year under this category.

This is kind of same as TN visa .... but TN visa is more specific to CAanada and Mexico. Whereas this is meant for Australia and Ireland now (if CIR is passed).


The E3 visa is a non-immigrant category, so I guess either option is open to them for an immigrant visa.

Q,

Page 734.

[Spectator]

Thanks Spec - in other words Irish people will get an H1B equivalent but non-immigrant work visa under CIR (just like australians). The max visas will be 10500 per year under this category.

This is kind of same as TN visa .... but TN visa is more specific to CAanada and Mexico. Whereas this is meant for Australia and Ireland now (if CIR is passed).Q,

As you say, Australia already have an E3 visa INA 101 (15)(E)(iii).


(E) an alien entitled to enter the United States under and in pursuance of the provisions of a treaty of commerce and navigation between the United States and the foreign state of which he is a national, and the spouse and children of any such alien if accompanying or following to join him:

(iii) solely to perform services in a specialty occupation in the United States if the alien is a national of the Commonwealth of Australia and with respect to whom the Secretary of Labor determines and certifies to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State that the intending employer has filed with the Secretary of Labor an attestation under section 212(t)(1) ;

This adds it for Ireland, but with a much lower qualification threshold (a High School Education or a job requiring 2 years training) than that for Australia (specialty occupation).

If passed, it becomes:


(iii) solely to perform services in a specialty occupation in the United States if the alien is a national of the Commonwealth of Australia, or solely to perform services as
an employee and who has at least a high school education or its equivalent, or has, within 5 years, at least 2 years of work experience in an occupation which requires at least 2 years of training or experience if the alien is a national of the Republic of Ireland, and with respect to whom the Secretary of Labor determines and certifies to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State that the intending employer has filed with the Secretary of Labor an attestation under section 212(t)(1) ;


The numbers available would be 10,500 for each Country in E3.


(c) NUMERICAL LIMITATION.—

Section 214(g)(11)(B) (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(11)(B)) is amended by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘for each of the nationalities identified under section 101(a)(15)(E)(iii).’’.

Essentially it just hands the Republic of Ireland 10.5k E3 visas, that have no qualification criteria at all.

[gs1968]

To Q/Spec
Thanks for the prompt response.Even though it is non-immigrant it is renewable every 2 years indefinitely (atleast the Australian E-3) and can also be done from within the US. Spouses can also work without restrictions but not children. Also I think if they stay here for 10 years or longer they may get additional merit points towards immigration. I have read that the E-3 individual can petition for Green Card without jeopardizing the E-3 status.This would be a backdoor increase in the number of GC seekers.Australia has not consumed more than 2000-3000 annually but Ireland is going to be a lot different

[qesehmk]

gs - i have a two fold perspective here.
1. US was founded by predominantly white protestant people. So it is understandable that the existing population has more pull towards countries of their origin - whether Ireland or Australia. For that matter if you and I (assuming you too are Indian!) would naturally support immigration from India to US. So that's what various lobbying groups do and I think it is just part and parcel of the process ....

2. Countries like Ireland and Australia are not where people are lining to go to US. Chinese immigration is already dwindling down. Indian might also reduce if we consistently grow at 8% for next 15 years. So although theoretically those countries have this ability .... the reality is they dont produce as much immigration as many other countries like India China MExico Philipines etc.
To Q/Spec
Thanks for the prompt response.Even though it is non-immigrant it is renewable every 2 years indefinitely (atleast the Australian E-3) and can also be done from within the US. Spouses can also work without restrictions but not children. Also I think if they stay here for 10 years or longer they may get additional merit points towards immigration. I have read that the E-3 individual can petition for Green Card without jeopardizing the E-3 status.This would be a backdoor increase in the number of GC seekers.Australia has not consumed more than 2000-3000 annually but Ireland is going to be a lot different

[justvisiting]

justvisiting,

I think the problem with the FB side is that FB2A disappears immediately, but FB4 does not disappear for 18 months, so they have to have % for those first 18 months and then replace them with new ones when FB4 is no longer there.

Yet another one is in Section 2302 (c)(3)(B) where the criteria appear incomplete because of the hanging "and"

I'm sure you have other examples as well.

Having said the above, it must have been a nightmare for the staff trying to write this document. I don't underestimate the task they had.

Thanks for clarifying re: FB and the two allocations. I couldn't figure out why they had two seemingly contradictory provisions, but that makes perfect sense. I went back and re-read and your explanation makes perfect sense.

I don't understand why they repeated the definitions of EB-1 (with some minor changes in language) in the section listing numerically-exempt categories, yet did not repeal EB-1 from section 203(b).

The hanging "and" is a mystery. I heard Sen. Rubio in an interview explain they wouldn't allow more than 2M visas for RPIs in any year so as not to overload USCIS, but I can't find that anywhere in the bill. It makes sense if the line that's missing after the and said something like "no more than 2,000,000 can be processed in a single fiscal year?

[rupen86]

Place Holder for Anchor Post

Country cap removal effective from FY 2015
120k from merit track 1 available from first fiscal year after bill enactment date.
Recapture to be effective from FY 2015.
Exempting certain categories from Quota like (Dependents, some STEM graduates, EB1 etc). It is not clear when this will be effective.

It is unfortunate that most of the provisions are not scheduled to take effect immediately.

[Spectator]

Does anyone have thoughts on this anomaly in the text?

In the section that talks about EXCEPTION FROM LABOR CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT FOR STEM IMMIGRANTS on page 311, it says:


(1) EXCEPTION FROM LABOR CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT FOR STEM IMMIGRANTS.—

Section 212(a)(5)(D) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(5)(D)) is amended to read as follows:

‘‘(D) APPLICATION OF GROUNDS.—

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in clause (ii), the grounds for inadmissibility of aliens under subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall apply to immigrants seeking admission or adjustment of status under paragraph (2) or (3) of section 203(b).

‘‘(ii) SPECIAL RULE FOR STEM IMMIGRANTS.—

The grounds for inadmissibility of aliens under subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an immigrant seeking admission or adjustment of status under paragraph (2)(A)(ii) of section 203(b).’’.

Subparagraph (A) refers to 212(a)(5)(A)


(A) Labor certification.-

(i) In general.-Any alien who seeks to enter the United States for the purpose of performing skilled or unskilled labor is inadmissible, unless the Secretary of Labor has determined and certified to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General that-

etc

Paragraph (2)(A)(ii) of section 203(b) neither exists currently nor is created as part of this Bill (page 303-304), so it appears to be a nonsense sentence, particularly as, in the Bill, (2)(A) of section 203(b) is designated for EB2 cases other than the "special" US STEM Advanced Degree. (2)(B) ADVANCED DEGREES IN A STEM FIELD deals with those. (2)(B)(ii) deals with the definition of a "Doctoral Institution".

As written, I cannot fathom who is actually exempted from needing to go through the PERM process.

[justvisiting]

Does anyone have thoughts on this anomaly in the text?

In the section that talks about EXCEPTION FROM LABOR CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT FOR STEM IMMIGRANTS on page 311, it says:



Subparagraph (A) refers to 212(a)(5)(A)



Paragraph (2)(A)(ii) of section 203(b) neither exists currently nor is created as part of this Bill (page 303-304), so it appears to be a nonsense sentence, particularly as, in the Bill, (2)(A) of section 203(b) is designated for EB2 cases other than the "special" US STEM Advanced Degree. (2)(B) ADVANCED DEGREES IN A STEM FIELD deals with those. (2)(B)(ii) deals with the definition of a "Doctoral Institution".

As written, I cannot fathom who is actually exempted from needing to go through the PERM process.

Ron Gotcher commented on this anomaly. The thought is they were trying to reference back to the new STEM category.

[Spectator]

Ron Gotcher commented on this anomaly. The thought is they were trying to reference back to the new STEM category.justvisiting,

That's my thought too, but the text doesn't actually say that. Also, the exact definition of that new STEM category is also as clear as mud. I wonder whether


‘‘(I) has earned a graduate degree at the level of master’s or higher in a field of science, technology, engineering, or mathematics from an accredited United States institution of higher education

should actually say


‘‘(I) has earned a graduate degree at the level of master’s or higher in a field of science, technology, engineering, or mathematics from an accredited United States doctoral institution of higher education

Then defining a Doctoral Institution of Higher Education in the same section [203(b)(2)(B)(ii)] makes sense.

More questions than answers when we get down to the fine detail.

[keep on_trying]

i was reading the section on family visas and i have a few questions about that. i would really appreciate any help from the experts in this forum. i know most of you guys are interested in EB visas but but for those who can help i thank you in advance.

1) in the bill and it seems kind of weird to me that the new allocation of the visas will be 35% for F-1 ( Adult sons and daughter of U.S citizens) and 40% for F-2 (Adult sons and daughters and LPRs). why is it that adult sons and daughters of LPRs will get more visas than adult sons and daughters of U.S citizens?

2) since the bill mentions that any the changes in the visa allocation will take effect 18 months after the enactment of the bill, should we expect the visa bulletin to move at the same current rate for 18 months after the bill's enactment until the new allocations takes place? or will things like visa recapture and other adjustments take effect before that?

3) I've read somewhere that under the new bill, non-immigrant V-Visa will be expended to include adult sons and daughters of U.S citizens and LPRs. this visa will allow those who have been waiting in line for 3+ years to live and work in the U.S while waiting for their priority dates to become current. can anybody confirm that?

[Spectator]

i was reading the section on family visas and i have a few questions about that. i would really appreciate any help from the experts in this forum. i know most of you guys are interested in EB visas but but for those who can help i thank you in advance.

1) in the bill and it seems kind of weird to me that the new allocation of the visas will be 35% for F-1 ( Adult sons and daughter of U.S citizens) and 40% for F-2 (Adult sons and daughters and LPRs). why is it that adult sons and daughters of LPRs will get more visas than adult sons and daughters of U.S citizens?

2) since the bill mentions that any the changes in the visa allocation will take effect 18 months after the enactment of the bill, should we expect the visa bulletin to move at the same current rate for 18 months after the bill's enactment until the new allocations takes place? or will things like visa recapture and other adjustments take effect before that?

3) I've read somewhere that under the new bill, non-immigrant V-Visa will be expended to include adult sons and daughters of U.S citizens and LPRs. this visa will allow those who have been waiting in line for 3+ years to live and work in the U.S while waiting for their priority dates to become current. can anybody confirm that?keep on_trying,

Welcome to the forum.

Here's my understanding.

1) In the first FY after enactment, tha FB % are as follows:

FB1 - 20% - Unmarried Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens
FB2(B) - 20% - Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent Residents
FB3 - 20% - Married Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens
FB4 - 40% - Brothers and Sisters of Adult U.S. Citizens

In the first FY after 18 months have elapsed since enactment, it changes to:

FB1A - 35% - Unmarried Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens
FB1B - 25% - Married Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens under 31
FB2 - 40% - Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent Residents

I guess it does look a bit odd to have the US Citizen % lower than the LPR one for Unmarried Sons and Daughters. In time, after enactment, this would actually give a better chance of the Son or Daughter coming to the USA before the Parent had waited the requisite time to become Naturalized.


2) Since initially, there are the same number of visas available to fewer Categories, then dates would move more quickly.

The 3 figures are Now: After Enactment: 18 months after enactment

FB1/FB1A - 23,400 ---> 45,200 ---> 56,350
FB2B/FB2 - 26,266 ---> 45,200 ---> 64,400
FB3/FB1B - 23,400 ---> 45,200 ---> 40,250

There are also some measures, using the Merit Based visas, to accelerate clearing the existing FB backlog over time, as well as recapture of "wasted visas".


3) I haven't really looked at the V visa. From a quick look, it applies to:

(i) Subject to section 214(q)(1) and section 212(a)(4), an alien who is the beneficiary of an approved petition under section 25 203(a) as—

(I) the unmarried son or unmarried daughter of a citizen of the United States;
(II) the unmarried son or unmarried daughter of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence; or
(III) the married son or married daughter of a citizen of the United States and who is under 31 years of age; or

(ii) subject to section 214(q)(2), an alien who is—

(I) the sibling of a citizen of the United States; or
(II) the married son or married daughter of a citizen of the United States and who is over 31 years of age.

Group (i) will be employment authorized and can stay until their Immigrant Visa or Adjustment of Status application is denied. They then have 30 days to leave.

Group (ii) have no employment authorization and can only spend 60 days per FY in V status.

The requirement that the I-130 is 3 years old appears to have been removed.

The V visa is Section 2308 starting on page 313 of the CIR Bill.

[Spectator]

I can't find the post now, but I think someone asked how many visas this might be.

That is not as simple as it sounds.

For those that don't know, currently any unused EB visas in a FY are allocated to FB the next FY and
any unused FB visas in a FY are allocated to EB the next FY.

For FB, they don't benefit from this, since the number of IR approvals generally means the calculation results in a figure less than 226,000 and it defaults to the minimum 226,00 allowed.

EB can always benefit from spare FB visas.

So, although visas may be wasted in EB, they have the chance to get them back if FB approvals are lower than their allocation.

a) Going back to 1992, 493.4k EB visas appear to have been wasted.

b) 180k of those have already been recaptured in previous legislation (130 + 50). You could say that 313.4k remain to be recaptured.

However, during that time, FB has also given EB a further 279.9k visas.

So really, the net number to be recaptured for EB is only 33.5k.

Any more than that is really the ultimate con trick, as the antis already know.

In the past, when recapturing visas, Congress has not taken numbers received from FB into account, and I doubt they will this time either.

Disclaimer :- It is extremely difficult to find information for years before FY2000, so there may be some "wiggle room" if my understanding of the numbers available and used in those years is faulty.

From FY1999 onwards, EB has actually received 148k more visas than were wasted, after the 180k previous recapture is factored in.

[rupen86]

I can't find the post now, but I think someone asked how many visas this might be.

That is not as simple as it sounds.

For those that don't know, currently any unused EB visas in a FY are allocated to FB the next FY and
any unused FB visas in a FY are allocated to EB the next FY.

For FB, they don't benefit from this, since the number of IR approvals generally means the calculation results in a figure less than 226,000 and it defaults to the minimum 226,00 allowed.

EB can always benefit from spare FB visas.

So, although visas may be wasted in EB, they have the chance to get them back if FB approvals are lower than their allocation.

a) Going back to 1992, 493.4k EB visas appear to have been wasted.

b) 180k of those have already been recaptured in previous legislation (130 + 50). You could say that 313.4k remain to be recaptured.

However, during that time, FB has also given EB a further 279.9k visas.

So really, the net number to be recaptured for EB is only 33.5k.

Any more than that is really the ultimate con trick, as the antis already know.

In the past, when recapturing visas, Congress has not taken numbers received from FB into account, and I doubt they will this time either.

Disclaimer :- It is extremely difficult to find information for years before FY2000, so there may be some "wiggle room" if my understanding of the numbers available and used in those years is faulty.

From FY1999 onwards, EB has actually received 148k more visas than were wasted, after the 180k previous recapture is factored in.

Ron has previously claimed that there are more than 300k visas to be recaptured. If what you are saying is right and there are only 33k left to be recaptured, it would be real disappointment.

[vizcard]

what would be nice (and I'm not volunteering to do this :) ), is a timeline of when things "go live" and a yr by yr macro level view of numbers available. For eg, assuming it passes this fiscal year

2014
- EB will have 140K + 120K of which EB1 is exempt, EB2IC gets x and EB2ROW gets y, EB3 gets z
- FB gets xxxx and 1/7th backlog gets cleared

2015
- EB will have (140K + 120K + visa recapture) of which ......

[vizcard]

Ron has previously claimed that there are more than 300k visas to be recaptured. If what you are saying is right and there are only 33k left to be recaptured, it would be real disappointment.

I can't believe theres 300K+ to be recaptured since 1992. That's 15K each year on average. In the last 5 or so years since I've been paying attention, hardly any visas seem to have been wasted (although I don't have actual numbers). That would mean that the 90s and early 2000s lost a lot of visas.

[justvisiting]

Spec, you are right. But theway the bill is written leaves a lot of wiggle room:



B) FISCAL YEAR 2015- For fiscal year 2015, the worldwide level of employment-based immigrants under this subsection is equal to the sum of--
`(i) 140,000;
`(ii) the number computed under paragraph (2); and
`(iii) the number computed under paragraph (3).


`(3) UNUSED VISAS- The number computed under this paragraph is the difference, if any, between--
`(A) the sum of the worldwide levels established under paragraph (1) for fiscal years 1992 through and including 2013; and
`(B) the number of visas actually issued under section 203(b) during such fiscal years.'.

Does "such fiscal years" mean during the sum of those fiscal years OR, does it mean during each fiscal year? If it's the latter, the you could "double recapture"

[Spectator]

I can't believe theres 300K+ to be recaptured since 1992. That's 15K each year on average. In the last 5 or so years since I've been paying attention, hardly any visas seem to have been wasted (although I don't have actual numbers). That would mean that the 90s and early 2000s lost a lot of visas.vizcard,

From FY2007 onwards, only a net 126 visas have been wasted overall in EB.

During that time, EB has received (and used) 64.3k unused FB visas (including the 18k this year).

[Spectator]

Ron has previously claimed that there are more than 300k visas to be recaptured. If what you are saying is right and there are only 33k left to be recaptured, it would be real disappointment.rupen,

I'm only saying that would be the case if what actually happens in the current system were taken into account.

Congress has no history of calculating recapture figures that way, so I think an actual figure of 300k is far more likely, even though it is double counting.

[keep on_trying]

keep on_trying,

Welcome to the forum.

Here's my understanding.

1) In the first FY after enactment, tha FB % are as follows:

FB1 - 20% - Unmarried Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens
FB2(B) - 20% - Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent Residents
FB3 - 20% - Married Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens
FB4 - 40% - Brothers and Sisters of Adult U.S. Citizens

In the first FY after 18 months have elapsed since enactment, it changes to:

FB1A - 35% - Unmarried Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens
FB1B - 25% - Married Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens under 31
FB2 - 40% - Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent Residents

I guess it does look a bit odd to have the US Citizen % lower than the LPR one for Unmarried Sons and Daughters. In time, after enactment, this would actually give a better chance of the Son or Daughter coming to the USA before the Parent had waited the requisite time to become Naturalized.


2) Since initially, there are the same number of visas available to fewer Categories, then dates would move more quickly.

The 3 figures are Now: After Enactment: 18 months after enactment

FB1/FB1A - 23,400 ---> 45,200 ---> 56,350
FB2B/FB2 - 26,266 ---> 45,200 ---> 64,400
FB3/FB1B - 23,400 ---> 45,200 ---> 40,250

There are also some measures, using the Merit Based visas, to accelerate clearing the existing FB backlog over time, as well as recapture of "wasted visas".


3) I haven't really looked at the V visa. From a quick look, it applies to:

(i) Subject to section 214(q)(1) and section 212(a)(4), an alien who is the beneficiary of an approved petition under section 25 203(a) as—

(I) the unmarried son or unmarried daughter of a citizen of the United States;
(II) the unmarried son or unmarried daughter of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence; or
(III) the married son or married daughter of a citizen of the United States and who is under 31 years of age; or

(ii) subject to section 214(q)(2), an alien who is—

(I) the sibling of a citizen of the United States; or
(II) the married son or married daughter of a citizen of the United States and who is over 31 years of age.

Group (i) will be employment authorized and can stay until their Immigrant Visa or Adjustment of Status application is denied. They then have 30 days to leave.

Group (ii) have no employment authorization and can only spend 60 days per FY in V status.

The requirement that the I-130 is 3 years old appears to have been removed.

The V visa is Section 2308 starting on page 313 of the CIR Bill.

thank you so much for the explanation. i couldn't have had asked for a better answer.

currently, only spouses and children of LPRs can benefit from a v-visa. there's a requirement for the v-visa that the I-130 application be filed on or before December 21, 2000. according to USCIS website, no visas are being issued since currently there are no I-130 applications pending under the F2A Category for that long . if they expand the categories that could benefit from visa but do not remove this requirement, then only people from Mexico and the Philippines will benefit from it since these are the only two countries with applications pending from before the December 21,2000 required date.

[keep on_trying]

spec,

in the bill it says that they will raise per country limit for family visas from 7% to 15%. i know that this predominantly benefits the countries with the highest number of applications and longest backlog, china, Mexico and the Philippines to be specific. but do you how that affect countries other than china, Mexico, and Philippines? do you think that any increase in the numbers of visas will be offset ( if not demolished) by this increase in per country limit for people who are from the rest of the world?
i have a feeling that raising the per country limit will speed things significantly for people from china, Mexico and Philippines while others have to wait for the same periods if not longer just to bring everyone to the same level.

[Spectator]

thank you so much for the explanation. i couldn't have had asked for a better answer.

currently, only spouses and children of LPRs can benefit from a v-visa. there's a requirement for the v-visa that the I-130 application be filed on or before December 21, 2000. according to USCIS website, no visas are being issued since currently there are no I-130 applications pending under the F2A Category for that long . if they expand the categories that could benefit from visa but do not remove this requirement, then only people from Mexico and the Philippines will benefit from it since these are the only two countries with applications pending from before the December 21,2000 required date.keep on_trying,

As written, that requirement is removed in the text of the Bill.

[keep on_trying]

keep on_trying,

As written, that requirement is removed in the text of the Bill.

my understanding was that the new bill only expands the categories that can benefit from this visa, but refers to the current law for other eligibility requirements.

[Spectator]

my understanding was that the new bill only expands the categories that can benefit from this visa, but refers to the current law for other eligibility requirements.keep on_trying,

Not as far as I read it.

The text on pages 313-314 replaces the existing text regarding the V visa.

The current


(V) subject to section 214(q), an alien who is the beneficiary (including a child of the principal alien, if eligible to receive a visa under section 203(d) of a petition to accord a status under section 203(a)(2)(A) that was filed with the Attorney General under section 204 on or before the date of the enactment of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act, if--

(i) such petition has been pending for 3 years or more; or

(ii) such petition has been approved, 3 years or more have elapsed since such filing date, and--

(I) an immigrant visa is not immediately available to the alien because of a waiting list of applicants for visas under section 203(a)(2)(A) ; or

(II) the alien's application for an immigrant visa, or the alien's application for adjustment of status under section 245 , pursuant to the approval of such petition, remains pending.

becomes


(V)(i) subject to section 214(q)(1) and section 212(a)(4), an alien who is the beneficiary of an approved petition under section 203(a) as—

(I) the unmarried son or unmarried daughter of a citizen of the United States;

(II) the unmarried son or unmarried daughter of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence; or

(III) the married son or married daughter of a citizen of the United States and who is under 31 years of age; or

(ii) subject to section 214(q)(2), an alien who is—

(I) the sibling of a citizen of the United States; or

(II) the married son or married daughter of a citizen of the United States 15 and who is over 31 years of age.

Thus, it removes reference to being at least 3 years old and being prior to the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act (LIFE Act of 2000).

December 21, 2000 is the date the LIFE Act was enacted into law when President Bill Cinton signed it. Source: this USCIS (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=6c6c3a4107083210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=6c6c3a4107083210VgnVCM100000082ca60a RCRD) page and better still, see this (then INS) Factsheet (http://www.ailc.com/publicaffairs/factsheets/LIFEAct.htm). It was the LIFE Act that created the V visa originally.

[vgraj1]

Hi Spectator,

According to the testimony given by Brad Smith, SVP of Microsoft, the un-used visa numbers in the employment category was 325,000 (please see his speech extract given below, published by Oh Law Firm). Does this number relate to the period from 1993 to 2013? If the CIR Bill gets passed, what will be the impact on EB2/EB3 priority dates effective October 1, 2014 ?

"I also applaud the provision of the bill that recaptures employment-based green cards that were previously authorized but never used. According to data provided by the Department of State to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman and published in the Ombudsman’s 2010 Annual Report, there were approximately 325,000 employment-based immigrant visa numbers that Congress authorized in previous years but that remain unused."

[Spectator]

Hi Spectator,

According to the testimony given by Brad Smith, SVP of Microsoft, the un-used visa numbers in the employment category was 325,000 (please see his speech extract given below, published by Oh Law Firm). Does this number relate to the period from 1993 to 2013? If the CIR Bill gets passed, what will be the impact on EB2/EB3 priority dates effective October 1, 2014 ?

"I also applaud the provision of the bill that recaptures employment-based green cards that were previously authorized but never used. According to data provided by the Department of State to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman and published in the Ombudsman’s 2010 Annual Report, there were approximately 325,000 employment-based immigrant visa numbers that Congress authorized in previous years but that remain unused."As I have explained in a recent post, that number is somewhat "smoke and mirrors", because EB has received most of that number back from FB already.

However, if that number was recaptured (as seems likely), everybody would be Current, considering the other provisions, and it would remain so for some time.

300k in the old language represents at least 600k after the Bill, since dependents would no longer count against numerical limitations under the Bill as well.

[vgraj1]

Thanks Spectator. If the CIR Bill does pass through, a decade-old long wait will end for many in FY 2015. Let's keep fingers crossed!



As I have explained in a recent post, that number is somewhat "smoke and mirrors", because EB has received most of that number back from FB already.

However, if that number was recaptured (as seems likely), everybody would be Current, considering the other provisions, and it would remain so for some time.

300k in the old language represents at least 600k after the Bill, since dependents would no longer count against numerical limitations under the Bill as well.

[justvisiting]

Schumer, Durbin, Flake and Graham amendment:

http://www.aila.org/content/fileviewer.aspx?docid=44069&linkid=261052

Lot's of changes to the STEM provisions, mostly clarifying that they are numerically exempt and the 5 year rule. Haven't looked at changes to the H-1B stuff.

[justvisiting]

Schumer, Durbin, Flake and Graham amendment:

http://www.aila.org/content/fileviewer.aspx?docid=44069&linkid=261052

Lot's of changes to the STEM provisions, mostly clarifying that they are numerically exempt and the 5 year rule. Haven't looked at changes to the H-1B stuff.

http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=44286 - New Summary from AILA. Pretty good.

[abcx13]

http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=44286 - New Summary from AILA. Pretty good.

I just see the amendment, no summary?

[justvisiting]

I just see the amendment, no summary?

Sorry, wrong link!

Summary:

http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=44283

[bvsamrat]

if CIR passes, can anyone who is staying since 2011 and employed before age 60 or un-employed at age 65 at time of application
, can apply for RPI?
It appears that RPI is 6 year residenecy permit without Visa requirement for travel, hence no I-94?
Why any one would do H1B extension??



Sorry, wrong link!

Summary:

http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=44283

[rupen86]

Sorry, wrong link!

Summary:

http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=44283

Other than exempting US STEM degree holder, is there anything else for us ?

[justvisiting]

Other than exempting US STEM degree holder, is there anything else for us ?

Please see the first posts in the thread. Overall, there is a huge increase in available visas for EB-2 and EB-3.

[rupen86]

Please see the first posts in the thread. Overall, there is a huge increase in available visas for EB-2 and EB-3.

I was referring to the amendments.

[vizcard]

What happens on May 9th ?

Is it the committee mark up or the actual vote? If its the former, when is the actual vote?

I want to see the CBO cost figures that is generally calculated after committee passage.

[gs1968]

To Viz

The deliberations on the amendments start on the 9th and will likely take about 3-4 weeks to complete.You can follow the amendments filed at this link

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/legislation/immigration/amendments.cfm

Although the list seems very limited-one should expect dozens of amendments to be filed by the 5PM deadline today. Again the Senators have to carefully weigh the chances of amendments in the Committee versus the entire Senate Floor as the Senate Judiciary Committee is dominated by Democrats and they may think there is a better chance in the entire chamber.Numerous frivolous amendments will also be filed in an attempt to slow down the process.Each amendment will be considered separately and discussed before a vote is taken on every one of them.The final package is decided after all the amendments are done and a simple majority is all that is necessary to report to the Senate Floor.

As we have said before,the Senate is the easier chamber and the following article features that-

http://washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-senate-skips-details-in-rush-to-pass-immigration-bill/article/2528981

[vizcard]

To Viz

The deliberations on the amendments start on the 9th and will likely take about 3-4 weeks to complete.You can follow the amendments filed at this link

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/legislation/immigration/amendments.cfm

Although the list seems very limited-one should expect dozens of amendments to be filed by the 5PM deadline today. Again the Senators have to carefully weigh the chances of amendments in the Committee versus the entire Senate Floor as the Senate Judiciary Committee is dominated by Democrats and they may think there is a better chance in the entire chamber.Numerous frivolous amendments will also be filed in an attempt to slow down the process.Each amendment will be considered separately and discussed before a vote is taken on every one of them.The final package is decided after all the amendments are done and a simple majority is all that is necessary to report to the Senate Floor.

As we have said before,the Senate is the easier chamber and the following article features that-

http://washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-senate-skips-details-in-rush-to-pass-immigration-bill/article/2528981

Thanks! This was very helpful. The process is mind numbingly slow but it seems to be thorough. I'd rather it take time and be good enough to pass (in both chambers) rather than the alternative.

[gs1968]

To viz
If you are having a slow day at work this might make interesting reading for you.It describes in detail the amendment process in Committee and afterwards

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/98-853.pdf

Also this was in my twitter feed

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/07/us/politics/gop-opponents-plan-attack-on-immigration-bill.html?ref=politics&_r=0

[vizcard]

To viz
If you are having a slow day at work this might make interesting reading for you.It describes in detail the amendment process in Committee and afterwards

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/98-853.pdf

Also this was in my twitter feed

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/07/us/politics/gop-opponents-plan-attack-on-immigration-bill.html?ref=politics&_r=0

Never a slow day at work but I do keep an IE window permanently open for this forum. Those links will probably be bedtime reading for me.

[justvisiting]

What happens on May 9th ?

Is it the committee mark up or the actual vote? If its the former, when is the actual vote?

I want to see the CBO cost figures that is generally calculated after committee passage.

The markup starts on the 9th. They will start the proces sof dicussing and voting amendments. The final committee vote wil take place whenever they get through all the amendments.

[gs1968]

C&P a tweet I just got

"Sen. Orrin Hatch is filing 24(!) amendments to the gang of 8 immigration bill. Taking DNA for legal provisional status applicants is one..."

[vizcard]

http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/border-security-examining-provisions-in-the-border-security-economic-opportunity-and-immigration-modernization-act-s-744

There was a Homeland Security Senate COmmittee hearing today. I'm not sure if anyone has any more detail on how this went and what the outcomes were.

[vizcard]

C&P a tweet I just got

"Sen. Orrin Hatch is filing 24(!) amendments to the gang of 8 immigration bill. Taking DNA for legal provisional status applicants is one..."

None of the "troublemakers" have proposed amendments - Grassley, Sessions or Cruz. Does that mean they are going to drop bombs during the meetings? or does it mean that they are just going to vote "no" no matter what comes out.

[gs1968]

To vizcard
They will surely file amendments-please wait for the official update on that website.A few more updated tweets

"Amendment #s so far for G o 8: Lee ~ 30, Hatch - 24, Hirono - 4, Leahy - 1. Betting the total will double in the next 50 minutes.
"Sessions- Would cap # of foreign workers granted admission to the country, & immigrants granted legal status, at approximately 30 million over a decade"
"Leahy officially filed the same-sex couple amendment to the immigration bill. (He said he would, but still, get ready for some drama)
"Another Leahy amendment would let immigrants who register as provisional immigrants to pay fines in installments rather than all upfront.

[gc_soon]

None of the "troublemakers" have proposed amendments - Grassley, Sessions or Cruz. Does that mean they are going to drop bombs during the meetings? or does it mean that they are just going to vote "no" no matter what comes out.

77 amendments by Grassley just added :(

[vizcard]

It's a mechanism to slow things down and get more controversy. Sessions has some pretty far out amendments. Grassleys seem more reasonable.

[justvisiting]

This is by far the most fascinating amendement, by a supposed "anti", Sen. Cruz, who is actually proposing 1,012,500 visas for EB, which shows he is anti-illegal immigration, but not anti-immigration:

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/legislation/immigration/amendments/Cruz/Cruz4-(MDM13526).pdf

[vizcard]

This is by far the most fascinating amendement, by a supposed "anti", Sen. Cruz, who is actually proposing 1,012,500 visas for EB, which shows he is anti-illegal immigration, but not anti-immigration:

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/legislation/immigration/amendments/Cruz/Cruz4-(MDM13526).pdf

Republicans in general are pro-legal immigration and more specifically skilled immigration but are sooo insanely anti-illegal immigration that they come across as anti-immigration.

PS: there's also no chance that makes it in. He's reducing FB numbers too.

[gs1968]

I found this article interesting. The punitive mindset is appalling
http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2013/05/08/1972011/the-11-most-heartless-republican-amendments-to-the-immigration-bill/?mobile=nc

This is even more interesting!

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/05/republicans-flood-immigration-bill-dumb-amendments

I know we focus here more on the high skilled employment component but I personallythink the family re-unification visas are probably going to be retained as well in the end.The Asian-American lobby is starting to get very active and the number of visas is not large enough to cause heartache.The press releases from the Asian organizations is very positive

[justvisiting]

Republicans in general are pro-legal immigration and more specifically skilled immigration but are sooo insanely anti-illegal immigration that they come across as anti-immigration.

PS: there's also no chance that makes it in. He's reducing FB numbers too.

Agreed it has no chance. Just wanted to clarify, he's actually increasing numbers for FB, from 226K to 335K... and reclasifying spuses/children of LPRs as IRs, which frees up a bunch. Also this is the only amendment I could find that would let LPRs sponsor thier parents.

[gs1968]

To viz & justvisiting
It is also worth noting that only a fraction of these amendments will actually receive discussion and votes.There is usually a stage of amendment fatigue that sets in after a few mark-up sessions
As for Ted Cruz-he will not allow any naturalization of undocumented aliens

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/05/08/ted-cruz-seeks-to-ban-illegal-immigrants-in-us-from-citizenship

[gs1968]

This was tweeted to me

"Rep. Gutierrez, member of House Gang of 8, says if they don't roll out a bill by the end of May there's probably nothing being rolled out"

So the Senate Bill may be all there is to fight over-Hopefully they can balance it well to please enough people if not everybody to get it across the finish line

Remember these vote counts for Simpson-Mazzoli Bill in 1986

Senate Bill 69-30
House Bill -230-166

Conference report

Senate 63-24
House 238-173

Another interesting article

http://www.policymic.com/articles/40427/immigration-reform-2013-gun-control-failure-paves-the-way-for-immigration-success

I found a link to Rep.Gutierrez's above statement

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/298543-gutierrez-house-immigration-deal-by-june-1-or-bust#ixzz2SjN2prkZ

[gs1968]

I think the markup is going to start with Trigger provisions and then proceed title by title.Markups will be every Tuesday and Thursday till work is finished and a final Bill reported

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/patrick-leahy-immigration-markup-trigger-91070.html#.UYqMO66DUEc

[vizcard]

I think the markup is going to start with Trigger provisions and then proceed title by title.Markups will be every Tuesday and Thursday till work is finished and a final Bill reported

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/patrick-leahy-immigration-markup-trigger-91070.html#.UYqMO66DUEc

Is there a process where additional amendments can be filed ? I know there are whatever now and some subset will actually be raised in the committee meetings. Is that the extent of it - atleast as far the Senate process goes?

[gs1968]

To vizcard
The deadline for filing amendments for the Committee stage of the Bill is over.If no major changes are made to the Bill then it will be reported with whatever amendments are included.If substantial changes are made-then the text is replaced with one amendment and the amendment is reported in the nature of a substitute. In the case of this Bill no sequential referral was made to other committees and so once it completes the process in the Judiciary committee-it will be reported to the Senate Floor. There has to be unanimous consent for sequential referral to other committees and any one senator can object and there is a potential for the Bill to be slowed down and I think this may be the reason for not referring to other committees

Once on the Senate Floor other senators can file amendments regardless of relevance but once cloture is filed only germane amendments are allowed. Theoretically at this stage endless amendments are possible but the floor managers including the Senate Majority/Minority leaders agree on a certain number of amendments per side usually equal
In other words a long way to go!!

[kuku82]

Some of the stringent amendments from GOP in plain english

http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2013/05/08/1972011/the-11-most-heartless-republican-amendments-to-the-immigration-bill/

[CleanSock]

Out of those listed in the article, the ones by Chuck Grassley are the most outrageous!



Some of the stringent amendments from GOP in plain english

http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2013/05/08/1972011/the-11-most-heartless-republican-amendments-to-the-immigration-bill/

[gs1968]

Going by opening statements it looks like it will clear committee by 13-5 at the very least(Hatch sounds like he is on board too). Cornyn's position is unclear but 14-4 would be fantastic!

[desiman]

Ruchi Sanghvi, Dropbox VP, testifies on immigration reform

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10100789294634021

[vizcard]

Out of those listed in the article, the ones by Chuck Grassley are the most outrageous!

I don't know about that. Sessions and Cruz really have some that are ridiculous.

Edit: I was referring to the complete set of amendments - not just the ones in the article.

[gs1968]

First block of 11 amendments passed by #SJC. All were pre-agreed to.The amendments are Cornyn6; Feinstein6,7,8, Flake1,2; Hirono24; Leahy1; Sessions36; Grassley2,5 to S.744 - all adopted by voice vote

[gs1968]

First test of Go8 unity passes
Grassley amendment to delay the RPI status till Congress certifies border is secure was defeated 12-6

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/legislation/immigration/amendments/Grassley/Grassley4-%28EAS13439%29.pdf

[vizcard]

how many amendments have been discussed? I would think including the block probably about 15 - 20

[gs1968]

Lee amendment 4 to give power to congress for "the last say"of DHS border security plan fails 6-12
Grassley 1 which expands border resources in all sectors rather than "high-risk" passes by voice vote
Grassley 24 Amendment to S.744 was adopted by voice vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee.This amendment would more closely track grant money that's in the bill

With 17 amendments considered so far, Senate Judiciary Committee recesses till 130PM

[vizcard]

At this rate it'll probably take atleast 8-10 days to get through these. I doubt there will be any more block amendments. So it should reach the floor by mid-June latest and get voted on by before the July 4th holiday. Cant ask for anything more I guess.

[CleanSock]

For those who want to see the list of which amendments have been adopted and which were voted against with detailed information of each amendment :

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov

[seahawks2012]

For those who want to see the list of which amendments have been adopted and which were voted against with detailed information of each amendment :

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov

Thanks for the link. On an average Senators have filed anywhere between 6-24 amendments. "Sessions" has filed 49 amendments. Mr. Grassley has filed no less than 77 amendments!!!

[gs1968]

Had to share this tweet!

Dear,@GOP, when it comes to #immigration, if you Cruz, you lose.

[gs1968]

Feinstein 9 gives fed $ to states, tribal, local govs to criminally prosecute. Just Passed on voice vote.
Sessions' Amendment 37 (to strike bill requiring DHS policies regarding use of force) fails 11-7.

[vizcard]

Good first day. All amendments to Title 1 have been discussed and closed. Next comes Title 2 - Immigrant Visas - a topic thats close to the hearts for most of us.

Correction - next will be Title 4 - non- immigrant visas on 5/14

[vizcard]

http://davidleopold.net/2013/05/14/summary-of-status-key-amendments-filed-in-senate-judiciary-committee-to-s-744-cirmarkup/

Summary of amendments by Title/ topic and current status.

[Spectator]

Amendment passed (17-1) that would set up a toll free number and webpage at DOL for people to report that they have been displaced by a foreign worker. A report on usage will be made to Congress after 1 year.

[abcx13]

Grassley asking very pointed Qs about pet provisions about Irish and cruise ships!

[Spectator]

Grassley 58 amendment requiring job title and location of job to be part of the posting on the DOL website was passed by voice vote (appeared unanimous).

Hatch 9 amendment to increase LC fee from $500 to $1,000 and use the funds to support STEM Education was amended (clarified) by another amendment (Coons etc) was passed unanimously by voice vote (from I-squared Bill).

Grassley amendment to instigate 1% audit of companies started but they have now recessed until 2.45PM.

[abcx13]

Grassley's passive aggressive style is hilarious.

[vizcard]

Real time update on twitter with hash tag #cirmarkup

[gs1968]

To vizcard
I tried following that hash tag but it is too cluttered with too many re-tweets and very little substance.It also lacks balance
It is easier to pick one of the regular updaters and follow them.Try Matt House or Elise Foley

[vizcard]

To vizcard
I tried following that hash tag but it is too cluttered with too many re-tweets and very little substance.It also lacks balance
It is easier to pick one of the regular updaters and follow them.Try Matt House or Elise Foley

I agree. Ive been following Jessica Meyers and David Leopold

[vizcard]

29 more done. 4 more to go in Title 4, then on to Title 3 - EVerify & Interior Enforcement on Thurs and Friday.

[Spectator]

This (http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/legislation/immigration/MDM13735.pdf) appears to be the amended version of the Bill (it was created yesterday).

The new version appears to start on page 845 but I haven't read any of it to check.

[keep on_trying]

This (http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/legislation/immigration/MDM13735.pdf) appears to be the amended version of the Bill (it was created yesterday).

The new version appears to start on page 845 but I haven't read any of it to check.

I'm so disappointed to see that the v-visa section of the bill was negatively affected by the amendments. in the old bill in said that v-visas along with work permits will be given to the unmarried sons and daughters of U.S citizens and permanent residents. the amended bill says only certain sons and daughters will be granted work permits. everyone else just a 60-day visit to the U.S. do you have any idea what certain sons and daughters mean?

[Spectator]

I'm so disappointed to see that the v-visa section of the bill was negatively affected by the amendments. in the old bill in said that v-visas along with work permits will be given to the unmarried sons and daughters of U.S citizens and permanent residents. the amended bill says only certain sons and daughters will be granted work permits. everyone else just a 60-day visit to the U.S. do you have any idea what certain sons and daughters mean?keep on_trying,

The language in the original Bill and the Amended Bill appears to be unaltered as far a V Visas is concerned.

V Visas are applicable to 2 different classes of applicant. Each class has different benefits.

The first class is referred to as CERTAIN SONS AND DAUGHTERS. These people have a route to immigration under CIR and therefore have enhanced benefits. Below are the people who fall under the first class and the benefit they would receive.

(I) the unmarried son or unmarried daughter of a citizen of the United States;

(II) the unmarried son or unmarried daughter of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;

(III) the married son or married daughter of a citizen of the United States and who is 31 years of age or younger;

(1) CERTAIN SONS AND DAUGHTERS.—

(A) EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary shall—

(i) authorize a nonimmigrant admitted pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(V)(i) to engage in employment in the United States during the period of such nonimmigrant’s authorized admission; and

(ii) provide such a non-immigrant with an ‘employment authorized’ endorsement or other appropriate document signifying authorization of employment.

(B) TERMINATION OF ADMISSION.—The period of authorized admission for such a non
immigrant shall terminate 30 days after the date on which—

(i) such nonimmigrant’s application for an immigrant visa pursuant to the approval of a petition under subsection (a) or (c) of section 203 is denied; or

(ii) such nonimmigrant’s application for adjustment of status under section 245 pursuant to the approval of such a petition is denied.


The second class is referred to as SIBLINGS AND SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF CITIZENS. These people have no direct route to immigration under CIR since FB immigration for Married Sons and Daughters over 31 and Siblings are eliminated under CIR. These people have reduced benefits. Below are the people who fall under the second class and the benefit they would receive.

(I) the sibling of a citizen of the United States;

(II) the married son or married daughter of a citizen of the United States and who is older than 31 years of age;

(2) SIBLINGS AND SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF CITIZENS.—

(A) EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary may not authorize a nonimmigrant admitted pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(V)(ii) to engage in employment in the United States.

(B) PERIOD OF ADMISSION.—The period of authorized admission as such a non-immigrant may not exceed 60 days per fiscal year.

(C) TREATMENT OF PERIOD OF ADMISSION.—An alien admitted under section 101(a)(15)(V) may not receive an allocation of points pursuant to section 203(c) for residence in the United States while admitted as such a non immigrant.

Neither class are eligible for Public Benefits.

I hope that explains who is eligible for a V Visa and those groups that have limited privileges.

[keep on_trying]

thank you very much spectator, you are an awesome person. i guess the reason i was confused is because the amended bill does not specify the categories in detail like the original bill.

[kd2008]

Amendments to S. 744: Link (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d113:./temp/~bda0mw7:1[1-131]%28Amendments_For_S.744%29&./temp/~bd7l7l)



There are 131 amendments proposed so far. Who know how many will be taken up. July 4 recess will come and go but this bill may not be voted on any time soon.

[jackbrown_890]

Amendments to S. 744: Link (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d113:./temp/~bda0mw7:1[1-131]%28Amendments_For_S.744%29&./temp/~bd7l7l)



There are 131 amendments proposed so far. Who know how many will be taken up. July 4 recess will come and go but this bill may not be voted on any time soon.

I think, they are probably working/ making deals on some of the amendments behind closed doors. So many of them/non controversial will pass with unanimous consent, the controversial ones are the ones taking time,,don't know how many of them are controversial. we will find out in next few days as both parties will require some to meet 60 votes threshold and some will be passed at the end of the day for next few days,,

[gs1968]

I think, they are probably working/ making deals on some of the amendments behind closed doors. So many of them/non controversial will pass with unanimous consent, the controversial ones are the ones taking time,,don't know how many of them are controversial. we will find out in next few days as both parties will require some to meet 60 votes threshold and some will be passed at the end of the day for next few days,,

Your assessment is correct. The number of controversial amendments is very limited and generally the amendments are balanced between Republicans and Democrats so as not to lose leverage.

The next amendments are detailed below

http://democrats.senate.gov/2013/06/19/senate-floor-schedule-for-wednesday-june-19-201