Android - It all depends upon the spill over number. However, if the admin ban gets extended beyond the 60 days and the FB spill over is applied. EB2I early 2011 is a possibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by android09
Printable View
Android - It all depends upon the spill over number. However, if the admin ban gets extended beyond the 60 days and the FB spill over is applied. EB2I early 2011 is a possibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by android09
Thank you. I'm in 2013 but want this line to start moving.Quote:
Originally Posted by NJMavarick
If anyone has come across this news. Any idea from where these unused numbers coming from ?
https://www.rollcall.com/2020/04/30/...-nurses-to-us/
Some more updates from Murthy:
https://www.murthy.com/2020/05/13/up...d-predictions/
Starting from this month I'm expecting significant movement for EB2 and EB3 Indians. From July we will see more aggressive movements for Indians.
Lets hope all these news does turn positive for folks waiting for years... Like Q said few days, we have all seen this same movie play out every few years [Gloom & Doom] and not give anything positive.
Hope the guys waiting for EAD get a chance to file and get them soon.
For folks waiting for GC, just forget [if possible] and carry on with life... It will happen at some point....
Tathastu. The most relevant details are in this paragraph.Quote:
Originally Posted by redsox2009
I wounder why he left out EB2/EB3. Maybe a) he wants the extra 10 days in this month to get better demand or b) he is withholding information to be revealed at this month's Check-in.Quote:
Mr. Oppenheim also explained that approximately 95 percent of family-based cases are processed at consulates, while 85 percent of employment-based cases are processed by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) via adjustment-of-status applications. Given that consulates across the globe have closed due to the pandemic, Mr. Oppenheim expects there will be many unused immigrant visa numbers for cases being processed through consulates. This could result in the USCIS having more visa numbers to use for adjustment-of-status cases this fiscal year.
Been there many times. Hopes were burned to ashes every single time. I will believe it when I see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by redsox2009
Is he not talking in general about SO from CP to AOS backlog agnostic to whether its FB or EB?Quote:
Originally Posted by idliman
He made a generic comment but the following statement "This could result in the USCIS having more visa numbers to use for adjustment-of-status cases this fiscal year." would be more relevant for EB as he mentioned that 95% of FB are CP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenzone
That is indeed true. Just keep in mind ... those numbers are still modest ... because they will be half year CP numbers within category EB2 and EB 3 only. No category now a days gives away numbers to other .... so just want people to not have very high hopes.Quote:
Originally Posted by NJMavarick
Sure. However, would we not have the 4.5K FB spill over available for EB2I considering EBROW is current and in addition the balance 1.4K number from the current quota? I am not expecting the dates move drastically but a 1-3 month FAD movement is possible for EB2IQuote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
I have never seen EB get numbers from FB in the same fiscal year. The numbers fall across next year.Quote:
Originally Posted by NJMavarick
I think couple of months movement is given for both EB2 and 3. (just a guess i haven't actually run the numbers).
Q,Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
I think he means last year's FB spillover of 16,000 would result in 4.5k to EB2 and since EB2ROW is current, and if its usage is not high, that 4.5k may come to EB2-I
We should get some clarity on the projections soon.
June Bulletin should be out this evening or tomorrow by latest.
I have no inside information but the Visa Bulletin page https://travel.state.gov/content/tra...-bulletin.html has an error message in place of the current and upcoming bulletin link and the page content under Fiscal year 2020 already has the link for June 2020 which is taking to a page that is not yet live.
So someone is currently working on the update.
Good luck for all in the queue.
Quick question. The country caps are applied on the overall numbers of both EB and FB. Given the pause in CP, the numbers normally used by EB CP and FB CP by India will now not be used. So the EB numbers will be available for AOS. And the FB number will spill over to next fiscal year. But since FB numbers are not used, shouldn’t that increase the EB country cap numbers this fiscal year?
Does anyone see anything wrong with the assumption above?
Totally agree. Sorry I misunderstood.Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketfast
It's a good point. I didn't think of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by eaglenow
It seems FB-I used ~14k visas per DoS visa statistics (a little under 7% of 226k FB visas, which is a bit surprising?) out of which some 13k were CP FB. I don't know how many FB were used by India this FY before the EO went in effect, but assuming CP FB is blocked for the rest the FY, then I think you are right that those should be available to EB-I AoS candidates unless there are FB-I AoS candidates in the US with later PDs who can pick up the slack from FB-I CP.
Good points. Since every country wouldn't have used FB, they can't increase it to every country. But conversely, they should decrease South Korea and Phillipines EB allocation. Would be interesting to see what Spec thinks.Quote:
Originally Posted by abcx13
Just to make sure we're talking about the same concept, I believe the discussion relates to the distribution of the overall 7% in FY2020.Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketfast
For those not familiar with the workings of this, the 7% limit is set on the sum of FB & EB allocations for a FY.
For FY2020, this would be (226,000 + 156,500) * 7% = 26,775
Prorated for FB and EB this would be 15,820 and 10,955 respectively.
If a Country does not meet the 7% limit in FB, then EB can benefit from extra approvals as long as the overall 7% limit is not exceeded.
This is why South Korea can have higher approvals in EB, since they have very few FB approvals.
As far as India goes, here's the FB approvals for FY2019 (AOS & CP).
Country --------- FB1 --- FB2A --- FB2B ---- FB3 ---- FB4 --- Total
India ----------- 275 -- 1,619 ---- 273 -- 4,316 -- 7,454 -- 13,937
Of those, these are the CP figures:
Country --------- FB1 --- FB2A --- FB2B ---- FB3 ---- FB4 --- Total
India ----------- 225 -- 1,222 ---- 226 -- 4,193 -- 7,406 -- 13,272
From this, we can calculate that 95.2% of India FB approvals were Consular Processed.
For FY2020, to the end of March 2020 (i.e. Q1 + Q2) the CP figures for India are:
Country --------- FB1 --- FB2A --- FB2B ---- FB3 ---- FB4 --- Total
India ------------ 74 ---- 500 ---- 107 -- 1,365 -- 3,557 --- 5,603
The figures above should give you a base to speculate on how this particular issue may evolve, given the current situation.
To be clear, this is entirely separate from any increased approvals due to FB under use in the previous FY, or vertical or horizontal spillover in the current FY.
This is about distribution within the current FY against the overall 7% per Country limit.
You can follow the monthly movement of CP, thanks to redsox, in this thread.
Hope that helps.
https://travel.state.gov/content/tra...-bulletin.html
Very interesting and fishy as well.
The Visa Bulletin
Error:
USCIS, in coordination with Department of State (DOS), is revising the procedures for determining visa availability for applicants waiting to file for employment-based or family-sponsored preference adjustment of status. The revised process will better align with procedures DOS uses for foreign nationals who seek to become U.S. permanent residents by applying for immigrant visas at U.S. consulates and embassies abroad.
Excellent explanation and helpful. Thanks for the info Spectator.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
The quoted URL leads to Revised Procedures for AOSQuote:
Originally Posted by Turbulent_Dragonfly
That leads to a link about the Visa Bulletin change from 2015 when the 2 charts per category was introduced. I think this is in error rather than some new change we should expect.
It seems like they started releasing the June bulletin and then changed their mind and forgot to revert to the older page sigh. haQuote:
Originally Posted by NeelVohra
The fact that country caps are applied to EB + FB, means if FB india has not yet used 7% of total available for FB, then effectively the number that can be used by EB-I can be increased. So if there is horizontal spill over from ROW, then this can increase whats available for EB-I. This is likely to benefit EB1-I and EB2-I the most this year, because their ROW categories are current. EB3-ROW is nearly 3 years behind, so the spill over benefit for EB3I is likely to be lower if any. I hope i am wrong, and EB3-I also gets to benefit.Quote:
Originally Posted by eaglenow
Based on Spec's numbers above, it looks like EB-I would have at max around 7,000-10,000 additional numbers available (assuming there are no approvals after march). i believe most this will benefit EB1-I and EB2-I as additional horizontal spillover from ROW. Though i hope EB3 benefits.
Update on the visa bulletin slideQuote:
Originally Posted by aquaticanIt seems like they started releasing the June bulletin and then changed their mind and forgot to revert to the older page sigh. haQuote:
Originally Posted by NeelVohra
USCIS, in coordination with Department of State (DOS), is revising the procedures for determining visa availability for applicants waiting to file for employment-based or family-sponsored preference adjustment of status. The revised process will better align with procedures DOS uses for foreign nationals who seek to become U.S. permanent residents by applying for immigrant visas at U.S. consulates and embassies abroad.
This revised process will enhance DOS’s ability to more accurately predict overall immigrant visa demand and determine the cut-off dates for visa issuance published in the Visa Bulletin. This will help ensure that the maximum number of immigrant visas are issued annually as intended by Congress, and minimize month-to-month fluctuations in Visa Bulletin final action dates.
Can anyone please let me know how many EB2-I approximate numbers are there from June 2009 to May 2010? Thanks for your help!
I might be wrong, but doesn't this mean that regardless of spillover from ROW, EB-I can use the visas up to 7% of EB + FB that FB-I is not using? In other words, EB should processed in order of priority date up to the EB-I 7% cap at least, which is now higher? Unless of course CO decides to screw India somehow.Quote:
Originally Posted by rabp77
Interesting point. The hypothetical order of CO:Quote:
Originally Posted by abcx13
1. Gives every country 7% of EB2 (i.e 7% of 43,680).
2. If there is excess still remaining, he will look for countries that have not taken 7% in EB+FB and give it to them.
But this year, every country will fall in this category. So will he distribute remaining equally to all countries that don't meet EB+FB = 7% ? Or will he first fill up EB2-I to reach 7% in EB+FB first as it is of oldest PD. I think he will do former. So both South Korea and India should get equal distribution.
3. EB2-I gets anything leftover.
This data is public. You can google for "I-485 inventory"Quote:
Originally Posted by maverick2010
Yes. As Spec noted, this is about the distribution of the 7% of the total visas available for FB-I and EB-I in FY20. If FB-I is expected to consume fewer visas in FY20 compared to FY19, EB-I's allocation would have to increase so as to meet the 7% annual target for this year. FB-I consumed (via CP) ~13,300 visas in FY19. It has consumed only about 5,600 visas through Q2 in FY20. And the 60 day CP moratorium potentially exacerbates the problem for FB-I.Quote:
Originally Posted by abcx13
Any horizontal spillover from EBROW to EB-I, will be incremental (but would not be applied until the next FY; this is separate from the ~16,500 spillover from FY19, which would be applied this year).
Folks the 7% across EB + FB is the convenient discretion that DoS has created. It has no legal basis. Spec or anybody else, if I am wrong, please guide me to a legal source.
I have raised this issue for a very long time that
1) such thing has no basis anywhere.
2) even if so 7% is not entitlement by any stretch of imagination
3) even if it is considered entitlement it no way allows visas to be issued across EB and FB in the same year. e.g. underallocating EB because a country consumed more in FB under the 7% across EB-FB rule.
Those who engage in advocacy, please take note of this and accordingly monitor this kind of treatment. My own explanation of all these novel interpretations is that DoS/DHS always have a bias against granting GCs to Indian H1Bs. The reason behind the bias in my opinion is that DoS likes diversity (it is one of their core objectives). Thus this is a systemic issue in my opinion rather than a racist one.
Sage advice there, Q.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Re: your points 1-3, has the DHS, however, set a general precedent based on how it has previously used this discretion? I'd think that how DHS has exercised its discretion has evolved over the past few years, but I doubt it could/would want to just constantly change its process year over year to ensure diversity. Maybe I am being naive. I just think they'd not want to risk looking like there is indeed a clear bias against granting GCs to India H1Bs (even if the source of that bias is not based on malice).
Last two years EB-3 India got ~2000 more visas than EB-2 India. I don't see a reason why that can't happen this year as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by rabp77
To my knowledge, the DHS and DOS started this practice at least 8 years back. Unless somebody challenges this in courts - this will continue.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLureoftheGreen
p.s. - This is just one way to limit EB-IC immigration. They have done many innovative things that limit EB-IC immigration.
USCIS inventory website only has April 2018 data. Looks like from June 2009-May 2010 there are approximately 5000 EB-2 numbers showing up. My interpretation seems wrong - I initially thought close to 25,000 EB2-I numbers between June 2009 -May 2010.
Thanks for answering my question.
I hope you are right jimmys, and that EB3-I also benefits from horizontal spillover. 2018 and 2019 EB3-ROW had been current for most of the year (around 10-11 months of the year). But in 2020, EB3 FAD was imposed slightly earlier. But i hope i am wrong here.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmys
1. Agreed, but CO has explained this is how it is done when explaining how S Korea got more than 7%. So this seems to be how the law has been interpreted / Implemented.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
2. Absolutely it is not an entitlement, but if there are more than the 7% applicants from a given country, they need to explain why they were not allocated. Or they open themselves to discrimination lawsuits. This may not be applicable if they waste visas due to processing delays or deluge of applications.
3. Actually this is precisely what happened a few years ago when EB3-I did not get 7% allocation and S.Korea got more than its cap. This was explained as country cap met across all EB and FB for India and was not for S Korea and hence EB3-I got less than cap and other got more than cap.
The numbers cannot transfer from FB to EB the same year, but cap is applicable across both in a given year. So if for example, FB is completely stopped for I, then the cap in EB-I cap will still be 7% of FB + EB. The percent doesn’t change, the numbers will.
The attitude of admin depends on who is in power. Obviously this admin does not want any immigration. They may not like certain categories, like Diversity visa etc, but they cannot arbitrarily make decisions without appropriate policy changes, either through memo or through regulation. Otherwise they will get sued.
They can achieve this by putting in policy changes. For example the extreme vetting was put in through a memo, which was used to prevent immigration from some countries. The public charge rule is used to prevent some others. The H1B regulation is being tightened to deny as many as possible through speciality occupation etc. But as a recent court case decision demonstrated, they lost a lawsuit where courts sided with plaintiffs that the admin went beyond the law and they cannot use some of their earlier policy changes to deny h1bs.
As for Bias against India/ China, ther may be the agencies who do not like IC, but they cannot take decisions based on that as they never know who will sue them and who will not. That is a great risk personally as if a pattern is established they become personally liable. So far none of the policy changes seem to be targeting IC, though recent grumbling about China and unemployment numbers could change that.
Let’s see how things turn out in the future.
When I look at the monthly report PDF for FY2020 for EB Immigrant Visa numbers (sum of both Foreign post and USCIS issued), totals only to approx 14000. Also, when I look at the summary Annual report for FY2019 the EB1 to EB3 (GC+AOS) totals to 121K. Is this not supposed to be only GC = 121K? Where can we find FY2019 EB GC issued numbers?
1. Based on Monthly PDF reports, the FY2020 Q1+Q2 , EB based GC issued is approx = 14K ( Both issued in US and Consulates Abroad). What happens to the rest? Are they issued in Q3+Q4 as per earlier practices?
2. FY2019 summary report Shows GC+AOS = 121K (Eb1-Eb3). Is this number not supposed to be only GC issued? Where can I find EB only GCs issued by country report for FY2019.
Thank you! and apologies if this was answered earlier!