Printable View
gcq - EB2I will be crushed if this trend continues in EB3 (just an observation - not a criticism). 9 months movement = approx 14-18K applicants. 3K is usual quota. 3K is porting. So where did the rest go? So this movement itself is suspicious for me. I fear that EB3I will have to retro.Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
gcq - we have been estimating porting since 2010 when we started this blog. Indeed people have been porting for quite some time now. So I looked at the data.
Here is the situation:
Oct 2012 EB3I prior to Sep 2003 - 10.5K
Jul 2013 EB3I prior to Sep 2003 - 6.5K
4K is already more than the quota.. So imagine the rest is porting. 6.5K were remaining as of July. It's impossible all of them have ported post Jul 2012.
Yet CO moved the date ... so either give them visas or retro the date. There is NO third alternative here gcq. Right?
p.s. - Spec - you are right on your "absolutely criminal" comment. It looks like EB3I will benefit at the cost of EB3ROW. Only a guess as of now. I am not certain. But otherwise dates must retro for them. I cant see a third alternative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
Q,Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
What about EB3-I? We all know it moved forward 9 months in spe bulletion. what will be the scenario for 2014? will it move forward or it will retrogress or stay there?
With the spill over capture and all other stuff, I still think atleast 1000 out of 7000 EB3-I applications that will be current in sep 2013 will be left unapproved becuase of USCIS inefficiency in processing the applications in time. Given that do you guys think the dates will retrogress or move forward couple of weeks every month going forward.
EB3 movement is not measured inspite of the fact that EB3 has such a ripe backlog that - CO should either approve or deny instantly. There is no reason why there should be ambiguity.
It looks like the ambiguity is probably coming from porting. So CO probably doesn't know when an EB3 case is already approved as EB2. I find it hard to believe but .... that's the best we can say or else as Spec says the movement is "criminal".
My personal guess is that sufficient EB3I will remain unapproved that the dates will have to be retroed for EB3I. I suspect the same should be true for EB3ROW - however, EB3ROW quota is quite large and hence CO may choose not to retro at all.
So net net - the chances that EB3I will retro are very high and the chances that EB3ROW will retro are moderate.
I should start by saying, Gurus considering EB3-I movement as "criminal"/"heart breaking" and EB2 movement is "valid" and it "should move further" infuriates an EB3 er like me. Remember EB2-I is not moving because of their regular quota, but because of spillovers.
Again fundamental issue with EB3-I movement is that this had to happen. Over the past couple of years whenever I hear EB3 ers are porting to EB2 I have always been scratching my head "where is the equivalent reduction in EB3 inventory".
I guess at this point there are 2 chances why this movement happened. I believe option 1 is the reason.
1. USCIS accounted for all the EB3 to EB2 porters and figured out that much inventory has been reduced in EB3-I so has to move EB3-I. In this case dates will slowly progress from this point and it won't retrogress.
USCIS is not good at maintaining inventory and they always considered EB3 as "low priority" as they were more focused on EB2.
2. USCIS/DOS has no clue how to calculate the real demand minus porting for EB3-I so decided to experimentally move forward the dates drastically to see how many of these inventory is ported. In this case, depending on what they find, the dates could move forward or retrogress.
When it comes to EB3-ROW, the dates might have been moved drastically to get in more applications. The obvious outcome would be retrogression as in the case of EB2-I.
Sorry GCQ. I should've been careful in writing things.
EB3 situation is know to all of us. I guess everybody will be happy if dates don't retrogress.
I think given that there is so much clarity about EB3 cases, CO doesn't have any excuse to not utilize EB3ROW quota or entire EB3 quota. Spec feared (and I think there is good basis for his fear) that despite large movement, EB3ROW is not going to use its quota this year. This would mean EB3I will be moved forward to use any leftovers. That would certainly be unfair to EB3ROW.
However, it goes without saying that this whole quota thing is unfair to countries like India China Mexico and Philipines. Quota just doesn't make sense for any EB categories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
Like gcq i don't consider the EB3-I movement as "criminal". I do believe that the large movement is not only because of porting but also because of some spill overs from FB and EB3-ROW. CO in his best effort not to waste the visa numbers moved the dates for EB3-I significantly as the EB3-I has most approvable preadjudicated 485 applications. Like Q mentioned the service center should be able to approve or deny the EB3-I 485 instantly.
My take on this is if the USCIS efficently process the 485 applications for EB3-I in SEP, i believe the date will stay ther for couple of months and then move forward 2 - 4 weeks from there on based on 2014 quota
gcq,Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
Don't attribute words to me that I never said.
My "criminal" comment was solely about the fact that EB3-ROW seem unlikely to receive their allocation of visas this year. That was an entirely avoidable situation. In case you hadn't noticed, EB3-ROW are also permanently retrogressed and have consistently failed to be given their yearly allocation.
I totally agree with you. Now EB3-I has moved into 2003, I expect to see much faster movement. My only caveat is that recent history suggests that a large number of EB3-ROW cases are constantly being "discovered" that were not in the DOS Demand. I hope that is not the case for EB3-I.Quote:
Again fundamental issue with EB3-I movement is that this had to happen. Over the past couple of years whenever I hear EB3 ers are porting to EB2 I have always been scratching my head "where is the equivalent reduction in EB3 inventory".
I guess at this point there are 2 chances why this movement happened. I believe option 1 is the reason.
The porting cases have always been removed from EB3 as the difference between EB3-I drop in Demand versus EB3-I approvals demonstrates. However, we are now moving into the period when heavier porting has taken place from this year.
I think the dates for EB3-I would have moved forward at a faster rate in September anyway due to the large amount of porting this year from PD 2003. I remain unconvinced they would have moved so far if CO did not think EB3-ROW would not use all their available visas. CO said as much in the September VB.Quote:
1. USCIS accounted for all the EB3 to EB2 porters and figured out that much inventory has been reduced in EB3-I so has to move EB3-I. In this case dates will slowly progress from this point and it won't retrogress.
USCIS is not good at maintaining inventory and they always considered EB3 as "low priority" as they were more focused on EB2.
2. USCIS/DOS has no clue how to calculate the real demand minus porting for EB3-I so decided to experimentally move forward the dates drastically to see how many of these inventory is ported. In this case, depending on what they find, the dates could move forward or retrogress.
He is saying the significant forward movement for other Countries (including India) is as a direct consequence of insufficient Demand being seen in EB3-WW or the likelihood that it will be seen this FY.Quote:
At this time there is no indication that the expected increase is materializing or will do so in the near future. This has resulted in significant movements in the September cut-off for all countries.
CO needs a future Inventory. The previous movement to 01JAN09 only gave a future Inventory for FY2014. That was never enough. I assume you mean EB3-I rather than EB2-I.Quote:
When it comes to EB3-ROW, the dates might have been moved drastically to get in more applications. The obvious outcome would be retrogression as in the case of EB2-I.
As I said before, I am very pleased to see EB3-I moving forward at a faster pace - about time.
I did mean EB2-I not EB3-I. I believe EB2-I and EB3-ROW are similar in the sense they are at the edge capable of attracting new applications and hence retrogression. For EB3-I, it is in the middle and assuming USCIS has a good grasp of old applications, it is less likely to have people who become eligible for filing applications.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
As per your theory about EB3-WWW not having enough demand and hence EB3-I was moved forward, do you have any solid pointers or just a feeling ?
I remember there was some discussion in past about EB3-ROWs porting massively to EB2-ROW and hence EB2-ROW had a PD set. Could this lack of demand in EB3-ROW related to that porting ?
gcq,Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
I certainly thought at one time that EB3-ROW might receive sufficient approvals, as some cases were approved quite quickly. Those approvals have slowed considerably now that EB2-I processing has started (that's true for all other cases).
Read CO's comment again. He has said the forward movement in EB3 is due to lack of Demand appearing from moving EB3-ROW/C/M forward earlier in the year.
EB2-WW didn't retrogress due to EB3-WW porting to EB2-WW. It retrogressed because too many approvals were given to EB2-I(C). That happened because USCIS suddenly started processing new cases very quickly and USCIS were economical with the truth about the number of EB1 approvals to come.
CO couldn't (or didn't) internally make EB2-I Unavailable quickly enough.
As a result EB3 could not receive its full allocation if EB were to stay within the overall limit.
In FY2012, EB2-I(C) received 1.6k more visas than spillover allowed and as a result, EB3 received less than their 41.5k allocation.
In FY2011, EB2-I(C) received 1.9k more visas than spillover allowed, again at the expense of EB3, who received only 37.4k of the 40k available. Since all Countries restricted by the 7% limit received at least 7%, the losers were EB3-ROW.
EB3-ROW should be at a much later "real" Cut Off Date than they are. That's almost as important to EB3-I, since Fall Across within EB3 cannot happen until EB3-ROW run out of Demand. Apart from contrived situations as it appears may happen this year, that means EB3-ROW becoming Current.
Spec, One naive question,
How is EB3 ROW allocation related to Eb2-I/C allocation ? As they are different categories, EB2 being higher to EB3, any fall down to EB3 will happen only once EB2-I/C has become current. right ?
As far as my understanding goes, EB2 and EB3 start out with the same number of visas and fall down happens from higher category to lower category after fall-across has happened in the same category.
gcq,Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
That's correct.
But regardless of whether there is any Fall Down from EB2 to EB3 (which realistically is never going to happen), Fall Across within a EB3 can still happen.
If EB3-ROW can become Current, any spare visa numbers can Fall Across within EB3 to EB3-I as the most retrogressed Country in the Category.
The law doesn't allow EB2 to use spare EB3 visas (although that law seems to have been flouted in the last few years).
Technically Spec any unused EB3 visas become unused EB visas and are given to FB next year (just like FB visas are given to EB).
However in practice I have never seen FB receive any EB spillover because EB has always been retrogressed.
But by the same token FB too has always been retrogressed. So it is a miracle to me that EB receives any spillover from FB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
Q,Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
I'm fully aware of that, but my comment does not touch on that aspect. I agree it is miraculous that EB ever receive any spare visas from FB. It shouldn't happen.
The fact remains that the law does not allow EB2 to use unused EB3 visas.
However, it is an undeniable fact that EB2 have used more visas than SOFAD allows and that EB3 have consistently failed to reach their allocation.
Had EB3 received their full allocation, then the overall EB allocation would have been exceeded.
Yes. I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
** always pressurize CO to move EB2-I dates far ahead so that "people could file I-485". One side effect of such movement would be applications that does not qualify to be approved based on demand data, gets approved because their PD is current. CO and USCIS is know not to correct their mistakes. ( My above statements are speculations. I know the ** part. )Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
gcq
Statement 2 - I believe is quite likely wrong because demand data never claims to include all approvable cases. A lot of the cases from current categories do not ever hit demand data.
statement 1 is utterly wrong and I am not going to say anything further on that. Peace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq