2010 PERM APPROVALS Discussion

[kd2008]

Please see new PERM data till 9/30/2010 here:

http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/disclosure.cfm

I don't know how to handle mdb files. I simply tried opening it with excel. It only opened partial file till application filing date of 3/3/2010/ (This is the middle julian date in the case #). I was surprised to see 12845 approvals for applications filed before 12/31/2008.

51267 approvals for applications filed before 12/31/2009. So 51267-12845 = 38422 approvals in 2009

Again this includes all countries and EB2+EB3, certified+certified expired.

Because of the partial file, I cannot determine number of approvals for cases filed from 1/1/2010 to 9/30/2010.

[qesehmk]

KD thanks a ton! Welcome.

I will check the data, put it in our model and respond by tomorrow.


Please see new PERM data till 9/30/2010 here:

http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/disclosure.cfm

I don't know how to handle mdb files. I simply tried opening it with excel. It only opened partial file till application filing date of 3/3/2010/ (This is the middle julian date in the case #). I was surprised to see 12845 approvals for applications filed before 12/31/2008.

51267 approvals for applications filed before 12/31/2009. So 51267-12845 = 38422 approvals in 2009

Again this includes all countries and EB2+EB3, certified+certified expired.

Because of the partial file, I cannot determine number of approvals for cases filed from 1/1/2010 to 9/30/2010.

[leo07]

There are about 3000 ( I+C) cases with 05+06+07+08 Case numbers. Can we consider them all as Eb3->Eb2 Upgrade cases?

[kd2008]

That would not be correct Leo! This database does not tell you what the first time filing date was of the person who filed for the second time. So the numbers from 2005 to 2008 are truly to be counted. Most of them might port, but their filing dates will be in 2008-2010.

[leo07]

Thanks kd2008. I thought when they upgrade they'd get the same number.

[qesehmk]

Guys,

Here is some great news.

The 2010 PERM data is available (Thanks to KD for the news).

The summary conclusion is that in FY 2010 expedited PERM approvals helped ROW EB2 consumer almost 21K more labors than the model we had predicted last year. (Those old timers might remember we were projecting 35-51K total SOFAD). This single handedly killed EB2 prospects in 2010. That's exactly what we said 3 months back when the dates didn't move far enough as per our model.

In FY 2011 there won't be as much PERM backlog for ROW. At max it is 50% of 2010. So we should expect 10K more from ROW fall-across. Last years SOFAD was approximately 29K. If we adjust for the FB spillover which is absent this year, next years total spillover should be 29K - 6.7K + 10.5K = 33K. This should CERTAINLY move EB2 data to Jun 2007.

Even better news is for EB2 IC waiting to file 485. The total number of such people is about 27K.(Refer to 2008/09/10 labor data and multiply certified by 2.2). This will be easily cleared in FY2012. Which means the entire EB2 backlog until Oct 2010 will be cleared by Sep 2012.

Stay tuned for further details ... for now adios.

[Pundit Arjun]

Guys,

Here is some great news.

The 2010 PERM data is available (Thanks to KD for the news).

The summary conclusion is that in FY 2010 expedited PERM approvals helped ROW EB2 consumer almost 21K more labors than the model we had predicted last year. (Those old timers might remember we were projecting 35-51K total SOFAD). This single handedly killed EB2 prospects in 2010. That's exactly what we said 3 months back when the dates didn't move far enough as per our model.

In FY 2011 there won't be as much PERM backlog for ROW. At max it is 50% of 2010. So we should expect 10K more from ROW fall-across. Last years SOFAD was approximately 29K. If we adjust for the FB spillover which is absent this year, next years total spillover should be 29K - 6.7K + 10.5K = 33K. This should CERTAINLY move EB2 data to Jun 2007.

Even better news is for EB2 IC waiting to file 485. The total number of such people is about 27K.(Refer to 2008/09/10 labor data and multiply certified by 2.2). This will be easily cleared in FY2012. Which means the entire EB2 backlog until Oct 2010 will be cleared by Sep 2012.

Stay tuned for further details ... for now adios.


Wow, Really glad to hear this :)

[kd2008]

Guys,

Here is some great news.

The 2010 PERM data is available (Thanks to KD for the news).

The summary conclusion is that in FY 2010 expedited PERM approvals helped ROW EB2 consumer almost 21K more labors than the model we had predicted last year. (Those old timers might remember we were projecting 35-51K total SOFAD). This single handedly killed EB2 prospects in 2010. That's exactly what we said 3 months back when the dates didn't move far enough as per our model.

In FY 2011 there won't be as much PERM backlog for ROW. At max it is 50% of 2010. So we should expect 10K more from ROW fall-across. Last years SOFAD was approximately 29K. If we adjust for the FB spillover which is absent this year, next years total spillover should be 29K - 6.7K + 10.5K = 33K. This should CERTAINLY move EB2 data to Jun 2007.

Even better news is for EB2 IC waiting to file 485. The total number of such people is about 27K.(Refer to 2008/09/10 labor data and multiply certified by 2.2). This will be easily cleared in FY2012. Which means the entire EB2 backlog until Oct 2010 will be cleared by Sep 2012.

Stay tuned for further details ... for now adios.

27K number seems awfully small. Since the start of 2008, its better to assume 70% EB2 and 30% EB3 split. Moreover, you need to consider certified+certified-expired in your calculations and not just certified. In case you have done these things, my apologies.

[qesehmk]

It does. Why would you consider certified expired as well? I haven't included them.

Regarding the split, it is certainly true about ROW (60-40) but not sure about India China.


27K number seems awfully small. Since the start of 2008, its better to assume 70% EB2 and 30% EB3 split. Moreover, you need to consider certified+certified-expired in your calculations and not just certified. In case you have done these things, my apologies.

[kd2008]

Certified expired cases merely mean that the cases were certified 6 or more months ago. That's it. You can verify this by looking at their approval dates. They should be counted.

I won't be surprised if your estimates go horribly wrong because of this mistake.

[leo07]

I agree with KD, much safer to include certified-expired. Withdrawn/Denied/Blanks can be unchecked in the filter.
wow...there are 37580 certified-expired cases, more than the certified, actually!!!

Q bhai....what's your model telling us now with 37.5 k more in line?:)

[qesehmk]

that will throw us off my friend... can somebody pls find out where certified-expired is explained.


Certified expired cases merely mean that the cases were certified 6 or more months ago. That's it. You can verify this by looking at their approval dates. They should be counted.

I won't be surprised if your estimates go horribly wrong because of this mistake.


I agree with KD, much safer to include certified-expired. Withdrawn/Denied/Blanks can be unchecked in the filter.
wow...there are 37580 certified-expired cases, more than the certified, actually!!!

Q bhai....what's your model telling us now with 37.5 k more in line?:)

[TeddyKoochu]

that will throw us off my friend... can somebody pls find out where certified-expired is explained.

Q / Leo / KD2008 here is what I could find out, Looks like these won't count !
"There is a 6 months time to file 140 after the PERM is Certified. If 140 is not filed within that time, the PERM will expire and the status becomes Certified- expired."

[kd2008]

I don't know the answer. Nothing on DOL's website. So nobody had a clue I guess. But this might help.

http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum108-analysis-discussion/1197834-perm-data-for-2009-just-released.html

Read post # 10.

Quoting. "Certified expired means they have passed 6 months from approval. These databases is not updated every day I guess. my case was showing as certified expired because when they run report my case was already 6 months older than approval date."

Teddy I think you are incorrect. DOL has no info if a I-140 was filed. Why would they care?

[leo07]

Yes, I don't think DOL cares to update or CIS cares to update DOL with 140 application details. CIS defintiely verifies that the PERM is valid, but not sure if anyone cares to fix the status in DB.

But, I'm sure there's certain percentage of cases that really has expired PERM, I doubt that number will be as high as 37000

[vedu]

We need to consider both certified and certified-expired cases. If you sort the cases in the latest report based on the decision date, you will notice that all the cases 6 months prior to publication of the report are designated as "Certified-expired", if not "denied" or "Withdrawn". Same is true for all the previous reports.

[leo07]

35862 > $50000 per year
74 > $900 per week
171 > $3000 per week
12949 > $25 per hour
132 > $1800 per Bi weekly

Total = 49320 likely EB2...it must be definitely less than the number I quoted. I know it's not perfect, but a more reasonable number than 71K

Basically, I assumed the RHS number to be the min wage for EB2

[TeddyKoochu]

I don't know the answer. Nothing on DOL's website. So nobody had a clue I guess. But this might help.

http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum108-analysis-discussion/1197834-perm-data-for-2009-just-released.html

Read post # 10.

Quoting. "Certified expired means they have passed 6 months from approval. These databases is not updated every day I guess. my case was showing as certified expired because when they run report my case was already 6 months older than approval date."

Teddy I think you are incorrect. DOL has no info if a I-140 was filed. Why would they care?


Yes, I don't think DOL cares to update or CIS cares to update DOL with 140 application details. CIS defintiely verifies that the PERM is valid, but not sure if anyone cares to fix the status in DB.

But, I'm sure there's certain percentage of cases that really has expired PERM, I doubt that number will be as high as 37000


We need to consider both certified and certified-expired cases. If you sort the cases in the latest report based on the decision date, you will notice that all the cases 6 months prior to publication of the report are designated as "Certified-expired", if not "denied" or "Withdrawn". Same is true for all the previous reports.

Guys I think you are correct we will have to count the certified expired.

[leo07]

If we know for sure a min wage for EB2 that'll help in moving forward

[qesehmk]

Guys I think you are correct we will have to count the certified expired.

Teddy and others ... if we include certified expired then in 2010 FY approx 70K labors were approved which translates to overall 154K 485 demand and at least 49K EB2ROW demand. That doesn';t make sense given that we know ROW was net contributor to SOFAR rather than a consumer AND the current 485 and 140 pipelines for EB2ROW are almost empty (4-5K each).

We are missing something here.

[leo07]

some/most of ROW apps from 2008 Oct to 2010 Jan/Feb/March could already be out of the System. That is, they may have a visa number already allocated for them before October 1st 2010. right?

[TeddyKoochu]

Teddy and others ... if we include certified expired then in 2010 FY approx 70K labors were approved which translates to overall 154K 485 demand and at least 49K EB2ROW demand. That doesn';t make sense given that we know ROW was net contributor to SOFAR rather than a consumer AND the current 485 and 140 pipelines for EB2ROW are almost empty (4-5K each).

We are missing something here.


some/most of ROW apps from 2008 Oct to 2010 Jan/Feb/March could already be out of the System. That is, they may have a visa number already allocated for them before October 1st 2010. right?

Guys lets reason it out this way, assume that indeed certified expired need to be counted. Now atleast 20% the cases may have led to an I140 that is denied so this will introduce a factor of .8 and for row I believe that EB2-EB3 is 50-50 so another factor of .5. So if we extrapolate it becomes .8*.5 * 49K ~ 19.6K. Now I believe 2/3rds of these folks got I485 approved in 2010 itself we have 1/3rd remaining. Q I believe that EB3-EB2 was not separated out in the total, Leo I believe you are right most of these folks got approved in FY2010 and as Q rightly says there were around 10K extra approvals which also seems correct. Please comment.

[vedu]

Guys lets reason it out this way, assume that indeed certified expired need to be counted. Now atleast 20% the cases may have led to an I140 that is denied so this will introduce a factor of .8 and for row I believe that EB2-EB3 is 50-50 so another factor of .5. So if we extrapolate it becomes .8*.5 * 49K ~ 19.6K. Now I believe 2/3rds of these folks got I485 approved in 2010 itself we have 1/3rd remaining. Q I believe that EB3-EB2 was not separated out in the total, Leo I believe you are right most of these folks got approved in FY2010 and as Q rightly says there were around 10K extra approvals which also seems correct. Please comment.

Teddy,

You also need to add a percentage factor for those cases in which the applicants couldn't file I-140 applications within 6 months of labor approval for various reasons, thus wasting their approved labor. In other words, you need to add a reduction factor for truly "Certified-expired" cases that we won't be able to figure out from this report.

[TeddyKoochu]

Teddy,

You also need to add a percentage factor for those cases in which the applicants couldn't file I-140 applications within 6 months of labor approval for various reasons, thus wasting their approved labor. In other words, you need to add a reduction factor for truly "Certified-expired" cases that we won't be able to figure out from this report.

Vedu, thanks the 80% factor was out of my gut feeling no calculations here I intended to factor in both denials and cases wherein people could not file the I140 due to various reasons like employer refusal or employee moving on. I feel that anything higher than 20% maybe higher. Please critique advise.

[leo07]

vedu, I gave a thought about that. However, I think such genuine certified-expired cases would be less than 2%. IMHO, we can ignore that, 140 denials would automatically include such cases.

Also, is it really the case that 20% of I-140 cases are denied? where did we get that number?


Teddy,

You also need to add a percentage factor for those cases in which the applicants couldn't file I-140 applications within 6 months of labor approval for various reasons, thus wasting their approved labor. In other words, you need to add a reduction factor for truly "Certified-expired" cases that we won't be able to figure out from this report.

[kd2008]

My way of doing the estimation would be to take the PERM numbers on face value and not reduce them to start with. 20% denial number is unrealistically large. It may be more like 2-12%. The PERM numbers can be somewhat reconciled with the I140 receipts by USCIS.

[TeddyKoochu]

vedu, I gave a thought about that. However, I think such genuine certified-expired cases would be less than 2%. IMHO, we can ignore that, 140 denials would automatically include such cases.

Also, is it really the case that 20% of I-140 cases are denied? where did we get that number?


My way of doing the estimation would be to take the PERM numbers on face value and not reduce them to start with. 20% denial number is unrealistically large. It may be more like 2-12%. The PERM numbers can be somewhat reconciled with the I140 receipts by USCIS.


Vedu , KD & Leo thanks to all of you, I did some research on Trackitt I140 data and for 2010 found that just 30 out of 1267 I140's were denied this would be just 2.5%. I think in all we can make it 5% to account for all kinds of labors that did not lead to an approved 140, also people maybe less likely to post denials. So starting from Q's figure of 49K I believe this should translate to .95*.4 * 49K ~ 23K. Out of this maybe the split is 16K got approved in FY 2010 and 7K are getting carried over.

[vedu]

Vedu , KD & Leo thanks to all of you, I did some research on Trackitt I140 data and for 2010 found that just 30 out of 1267 I140's were denied this would be just 2.5%. I think in all we can make it 5% to account for all kinds of labors that did not lead to an approved 140, also people maybe less likely to post denials. So starting from Q's figure of 49K I believe this should translate to .95*.4 * 49K ~ 23K. Out of this maybe the split is 16K got approved in FY 2010 and 7K are getting carried over.

You may also want to add 485 rejection rate to that. All and all reducing approved PERM cases by 10% seems to be reasonable to take care of all the things that occur after getting PERM approved and getting the actual green card for the principal applicant.

[leo07]

Ok. I did a little more research to determine EB2 from the data:http://www.flcdatacenter.com/download/NPWHC_Guidance_Revised_11_2009.pdf

Level 1 in PW_LEVEL_9089 column is clearly not EB2.
Level 2 is a borderline case. It could be both EB2 & EB3 IMO. To be safe we can consider everything in level 2 & above as EB2: Which will bring us to 45317
If we do not include Level 2 then the remaining is:18721 Not a believable number, is it?

[vedu]

Leo,

unfortunately what you are saying is not true. There can be significant differences among levels among various occupations. For example, if an occupation needs only a bachelors degree, then level I for that occupation would be a recent graduate with 0 years of experience. Level II would be someone who has either years of experience or a masters degree. Now, lets consider another occupation such as a college professor where entry requirement itself is a PhD. So, in this occupation, level 1 would be a recent PhD with 0 years of teaching experience, and level 2 would be a PhD with some experience. Thus, in spite of being in level I, a professor would be able to apply in EB2 category. On the other hand, in spite of being in level 2, an experienced and accomplished cook (this profession just needs a bachelors degree probably) may not be able to apply in EB2 category.

[kd2008]

I am MS level 1. So that debunks your theory. I am really against this arbitrary filtering of data. Just take the total numbers of certified+certified expired, may be split for EB2 and EB3 but that's it. This guessing of rejection rate, expired PERM that did not file I-140 etc is just guessing. I would rather have a solid most conservative estimate rather than some high faulting assumption based voodoo that does not pan out. Last year's estimate being case in point.

[vedu]

I am MS level 1. So that debunks your theory. I am really against this arbitrary filtering of data. Just take the total numbers of certified+certified expired, may be split for EB2 and EB3 but that's it. This guessing of rejection rate, expired PERM that did not file I-140 etc is just guessing. I would rather have a solid most conservative estimate rather than some high faulting assumption based voodoo that does not pan out. Last year's estimate being case in point.

KD,

I am with you on this one. Lets just do the most conservative estimate and then hope for the even better outcome.

[geevikram]

I believe this PERM report does not provide a clear in-sight. Much more can be inferred from Jan bulletin (qrtrly spillover), or we will have to wait for the next 485 inventory. This labor report, after my review, has confused me more than anything.

My .02$

[Spectator]

I am MS level 1. So that debunks your theory. I am really against this arbitrary filtering of data. Just take the total numbers of certified+certified expired, may be split for EB2 and EB3 but that's it. This guessing of rejection rate, expired PERM that did not file I-140 etc is just guessing. I would rather have a solid most conservative estimate rather than some high faulting assumption based voodoo that does not pan out. Last year's estimate being case in point.kd2008,

I totally agree with you.

There seems to be an element of "force fitting" the figures to get to a preconceived end point, rather than taking the data at face value.

With so many unknowns, it may just be that the data is not useful at a Category level and we should just accept that.

I thought the data WAS interesting when comparing across ROW and retrogressed Countries. Looking at totals for Certified + Certified Expired :

China 4,052 5.8%
India 28,930 41.2%
Mexico 3,306 4.7%
Philippines 3,305 4.7%
ROW 30,644 43.6%

Total 70,237

The fact that India alone has roughly the same number of PERM certifications as ROW and more than 5x more than any other single retrogressed Country should be a concern for the future. Whether they are in EB2 or EB3, it suggests significant year on year demand.

It also suggests it will be a very long time before EB2-I becomes Current in the true sense of the word. That matters to EB3.

[leo07]

Thanks for clarifying!

I am MS level 1. So that debunks your theory. I am really against this arbitrary filtering of data. Just take the total numbers of certified+certified expired, may be split for EB2 and EB3 but that's it. This guessing of rejection rate, expired PERM that did not file I-140 etc is just guessing. I would rather have a solid most conservative estimate rather than some high faulting assumption based voodoo that does not pan out. Last year's estimate being case in point.

[kd2008]

kd2008,

I totally agree with you.

There seems to be an element of "force fitting" the figures to get to a preconceived end point, rather than taking the data at face value.

With so many unknowns, it may just be that the data is not useful at a Category level and we should just accept that.

I thought the data WAS interesting when comparing across ROW and retrogressed Countries. Looking at totals for Certified + Certified Expired :

China 4,052 5.8%
India 28,930 41.2%
Mexico 3,306 4.7%
Philippines 3,305 4.7%
ROW 30,644 43.6%

Total 70,237

The fact that India alone has roughly the same number of PERM certifications as ROW and more than 5x more than any other single retrogressed Country should be a concern for the future. Whether they are in EB2 or EB3, it suggests significant year on year demand.

It also suggests it will be a very long time before EB2-I becomes Current in the true sense of the word. That matters to EB3.

I don't believe that the intentions are to force fit but are rather to figure out why last year did not pan out as expected. So I get where Teddy's analysis is coming from. But as you said, sometimes data needs to taken at face value and accept unknowns as unknowns.

I really like the frank discussion here. So I apologize for the outburst. We need to get back to facts, numbers and calculations.

[qesehmk]

Spec / KD and all

Our objective is to establish visibility rather than make the most outrageous optimistic forecast. So thanks for this emphasis on conservative projections and value added criticism! Keep it up!!



kd2008,

I totally agree with you.

There seems to be an element of "force fitting" the figures to get to a preconceived end point, rather than taking the data at face value.

With so many unknowns, it may just be that the data is not useful at a Category level and we should just accept that.

I thought the data WAS interesting when comparing across ROW and retrogressed Countries. Looking at totals for Certified + Certified Expired :

China 4,052 5.8%
India 28,930 41.2%
Mexico 3,306 4.7%
Philippines 3,305 4.7%
ROW 30,644 43.6%

Total 70,237

The fact that India alone has roughly the same number of PERM certifications as ROW and more than 5x more than any other single retrogressed Country should be a concern for the future. Whether they are in EB2 or EB3, it suggests significant year on year demand.

It also suggests it will be a very long time before EB2-I becomes Current in the true sense of the word. That matters to EB3.


I don't believe that the intentions are to force fit but are rather to figure out why last year did not pan out as expected. So I get where Teddy's analysis is coming from. But as you said, sometimes data needs to taken at face value and accept unknowns as unknowns.

I really like the frank discussion here. So I apologize for the outburst. We need to get back to facts, numbers and calculations.

[leo07]

On the face of it there's 240% increase in applications from 2009 to 2010
Total certified+certified_expired in 2009:29.5K vs 2010:71K

[Spectator]

Guys,

My thoughts after looking at the new PERM data.

I have been pouring over the figures from the FY2009 and FY2010 PERM databases to see what it might mean for FY2011.

Clearly, if PERM approvals were significantly higher in FY2010 than FY2009 (which were very low) then it has an effect on what might happen in FY2011 for EB2-ROW I-485 approvals and therefore available spillover.

Assumptions

a) From the information available at the moment, it would appear that EB2-ROW had around 24.5k I-485 approvals in FY2010.

b) It takes 4 months from PERM approval to I-485 approval for EB2-ROW. Therefore a year's I-485 approvals will be made up of 1/3 (I-140s from the last 4 months) from the previous year and 2/3 (I-140s from first 8 months) of the current year.

c) Each EB2 I-140 results in 2.1 I-485 applications. This was the figure in FY2009 from the published data.

d) Significant backlog reduction finished in FY2009. This is borne out by the USCIS dashboard figures. Therefore EB2-ROW I-485 approvals (or the vast majority) will be as a result of PERMs approved in the previous and current fiscal years.

e) Discussion below assumes 95% of approved PERMs translate to I-485 approvals. If the % is lower, it translates to a greater EB2:EB3 ratio.

f) PERM approvals continue at the same average rate in FY2011 as FY2010.

Calculation

i) From (a) and (b) above, it can be calculated that the EB2:EB3 ratio for ROW is roughly 50:50. It can also be calculated that the the full yearly run rate for EB2-ROW approvals, based on FY2010 PERMs would be 30k.

ii) Since only 2/3 were used from FY2010, this implies that 10k will be carried over and approved in FY2011. In fact, it is probably higher than that due to the increased monthly numbers at the end of the year (see (iv) below).

iii) If the average FY2010 run rate continues in FY2011 then a further 30k * 2/3 = 20k would be approved for total EB2-ROW approvals of 30k. Again, see (iv).

iv) In fact, there is some evidence that PERM applications are increasing. For FY2010 the total receipts were 77k. However, the start of the year was very slow, so looking at the final 7 months of FY2010, the rate was actually running at 95k per year (USCIS dashboard).

Conclusion

There seems every likelihood that EB2-ROW will consume most of, if not all of its entire quota in FY2011, if FY2011 is similar to FY2010.

It will be interesting to monitor the USCIS dashboard and see whether the increased level of I-140 receipts continues in FY2011.


Additional Info

If the time period from PERM approval to I485 approval is greater than 4 months, the results are even worse.

If 80%, rather than 95%, of approved PERMs translate to I-485 approvals, then the EB2:EB3 ratio for EB2-ROW becomes nearer 60:40. Whether 50:50 or 60:40, both are within the bounds of possibility.

Calculated figures from USCIS Dashboard I-140 figures

Looking at the USCIS dashboard, there were 24k pending I-140 at the end of FY2010 (the vast majority at TSC for some reason) and about 1.6k I-140s awaiting customer action.

Plugging in the derived figures above, gives c. 12k EB2-ROW approvals in FY2011 - this is about the same as above, especially as some of the pending I-140s may be long standing and in appeals procedures.

Summary

1) Looking at the Q's last forecast and in light of the FY2010 PERM figures, the current estimate of 12k backlog for EB2-ROW looks to be in the right ballpark. :)

2) A figure of only 8k for new EB2-ROW demand in FY2011 now looks rather optimistic, unless there is still a belief that EB2-ROW approvals in FY2011 will drop by more than 50%.

3) In reality, EB2-Mexico and EB2-Philippines usually consume around 3,000 of their combined allocation, which doesn't seem to be fully accounted for.

SOFAD

You guys already know I am the ultra conservative. At BEST I don't see more than 25.4k SOFAD in FY2011, made up of 7.9k from EB5, 5k from EB1, 6.9k from EB2 and the 5.6k IC allocation. That implies the EB2 IC Cut Off date will probably not advance beyond 2006 in FY2011, depending on the level of Porting and PWMB applications.

At worst, I can see 10k less than that. EB1 remains the biggest unknown, since there is no reliable information about that Category.

PS Re-reading my previous post, I can see that the phrase "force fitting" was an inappropriate term, since it could be misconstrued and cause offence.

That was not my intention and please accept it was just my imperfect use of the English language.

[leo07]

Spectator, Thanks for the detailed post.

Quick questions:
When you/Q mean 12K ROW backlog? you mean PERM backlog? because, if it's 485 then the Visa would already be accounted for and we don't need to double count.
My take:
Assuming that PERM applications from 04/01/2010 in ROW are the only ones in ROW that need Visa allocation:
There are ~17,500 ROW applications: of which if 70% are EB2: Then this will result in 13125 EB2 PERM.
Resulting number of 485 apps: 13125 * 2.2 = 28875
I see that there'd be a min of 6 k Fall-across here? ( I thought mine was very conservative :))

PS: IMO, any ROW PERM certified before 03/31/2010 & not filed 140+485 is automatically expired. Since ROW was always current last year, Visa number is allocated as soon as the 485 app comes through.

[Spectator]

Spectator, Thanks for the detailed post.

Quick questions:
When you/Q mean 12K ROW backlog? you mean PERM backlog? because, if it's 485 then the Visa would already be accounted for and we don't need to double count.
My take:
Assuming that PERM applications from 04/01/2010 in ROW are the only ones in ROW that need Visa allocation:
There are ~17,500 ROW applications: of which if 70% are EB2: Then this will result in 13125 EB2 PERM.
Resulting number of 485 apps: 13125 * 2.2 = 28875
I see that there'd be a min of 6 k Fall-across here? ( I thought mine was very conservative :))

PS: IMO, any ROW PERM certified before 03/31/2010 & not filed 140+485 is automatically expired. Since ROW was always current last year, Visa number is allocated as soon as the 485 app comes through.leo07,

Backlog is probably not the best description. although I can't think of another.

The 12k refers to EB2-ROW I-485s that will be authorized in FY2011 as a result of PERM approvals granted in the last 4 months of FY2010, since there wasn't time to process them in FY2010, if it takes 4 months to do so. In my calculations, I actually come to a figure of 10k, but discuss why it might be higher. So it isn't double counting.

Then there are the approvals in FY2011 that result from PERM approvals in the first 8 months of FY2011,

There is always an element of "backlog" that flows through to the next year, since I-485 approvals are not instantaneous upon PERM approval.

As an example, using the 24.5 k figure for EB2-ROW approvals in FY2010, 4.5K were from PERMs approved in FY2009 (which also reflects the low number that year) and 20k were from PERMs approved in FY2010.


PS: IMO, any ROW PERM certified before 03/31/2010 & not filed 140+485 is automatically expired. Since ROW was always current last year, Visa number is allocated as soon as the 485 app comes through.

Your first point assumes there is a foolproof feedback loop from USCIS to DOL. I don't think that exists.

A Visa number is not requested as soon as the I-485 application is received. It is only requested when the I-485 has been evaluated and found to be non-deniable. Since this is done electronically and is instant, effectively the Visa is not requested until the time of approval. Therefore there is a 4 month lag from PERM approval and consequent I-140/I485 submission to approval.


Assuming that PERM applications from 04/01/2010 in ROW are the only ones in ROW that need Visa allocation:
There are ~17,500 ROW applications: of which if 70% are EB2: Then this will result in 13125 EB2 PERM.
Resulting number of 485 apps: 13125 * 2.2 = 28875


I am not sure where you are deriving these figures from.

ALL Certified + Certified Expired >= 04/01/2010 = 35,286
ROW Certified + Certified Expired >= 04/01/2010 = 14,207
70% seems too high a % for EB2 applications.

There are 17,563 total Certified Expired ROW of all dates.

[leo07]

"Your first point assumes there is a foolproof feedback loop from USCIS to DOL. I don't think that exists.". No, This is not my assumption. It's a irrelevant point because, I know this is not the case.
My only assumption was, for ROW, DOS allocates/reserves visas looking at the inventory of (pending 140+485 apps) (incorrect assumption may be). Because EB2 was always current, DOS+CIS would never want to deny a visa number for ROW EB2, even if it were to be approved in the last week of September 2010.

ROW as I see looked at was: ALL-IC


leo07,

Your first point assumes there is a foolproof feedback loop from USCIS to DOL. I don't think that exists.

A Visa number is not requested as soon as the I-485 application is received. It is only requested when the I-485 has been evaluated and found to be non-deniable. Since this is done electronically and is instant, effectively the Visa is not requested until the time of approval. Therefore there is a 4 month lag from PERM approval and consequent I-140/I485 submission to approval.


I am not sure where you are deriving these figures from.

ALL Certified + Certified Expired >= 04/01/2010 = 35,286
ROW Certified + Certified Expired >= 04/01/2010 = 14,207
70% seems too high a % for EB2 applications.

There are 17,563 total Certified Expired ROW of all dates.