Yes. That's the logical conclusion. There are other reasons (declines / withdrawals / ROW unprocessed cases) why these numbers would change. But everything else being equal ... that's a good logical conclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arorasa
Printable View
Yes. That's the logical conclusion. There are other reasons (declines / withdrawals / ROW unprocessed cases) why these numbers would change. But everything else being equal ... that's a good logical conclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arorasa
It would actually be more than that. The cases that are upgraded & approved in these months will not even appear in the demand. They use the Visa number, but do not show up in the demand data necessarily.
Q,Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
I think we may not be close to the actual, we know its started as 13,125 in OCT 2010 and then By DEC 2010 it is 13,150 and then JAN 2011 it is back to 13,125 and nor for march it is 13,175.
Let's take this...
1,678 EB2I pending with PD before May 2006 as of 10-01-2010 and then
there are 1,612 EB2I pending with PD before May 2006 as of 01-05-2011
which means a net 66 reduction and Q1 allocation of 7,00 visas - this does not mean 636 ported in Q1? b'se we don't know how many got denied/withdrawn and how many PWMB applied during this period.
I agree w you and that's why I said the logic is correct "DIRECTIONALLY".
Quote:
Originally Posted by veni001
Firstly, thank your Q,Teddy,Spectator and others for their detailed analysis and keeping the hopes of many of us eb2-I alive. Really appreciate it.Been following your post for a while now.Based on the current demand data published does it mean that the EB3-EB2 porting is less than expected?
Could be as long as the demand data, month to month, will not have significant jumps.Quote:
Originally Posted by whereismygclost
I would also be interested to see if we can shed any light on the #'s of EB3->EB2 porting during the last quarter and extrapolate it for the year. I think Q assumed 6,000 EB3 -> EB2 porting while predicitng EB2-I movement and that's probably more of an upper bound, i.e. it's very unlikely that EB3->EB2 porting will exceed 6,000 for the year. I saw in trackitt where people are predicting the EB3->EB2 porting #'s to be as high as 10K - 25K (25K sounded ridiculous anyway), though I don't feel the porting will be anywhere near that range. Can we get any idea on the EB3->EB2 porting based on the change/reduction in EB3-I pending cases? This might be difficult as the local office and consular processing cases are probably not listed in the inventory that we all see.
People are known to express their personal feelings without any sort of concrete evidence or believable guidance. Also, there are too many people indulging in poor taste of the language, spitting verbal venom on each other. To summarize, except for this Blog / website, I have not seen any "reasonable" guidance elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by pch053
Bottomline, nobody knows real magnitude of porting although we can be cautiously optimistic that it is exaggerated in other websites. 5000 seems to be a reasonable number.
Earlier I had assumed 6K porting. But now I am more towards 3-4K. I think 15-25K porting talk is not worthy of paying any attn whatsoever. Stay cool... Spec Teddy also think this number is 3-4K.
p.s. - If you didn't see it, couple of pages back I listed an alternative method to deduce SOFAD this year. Check it out.... because it gives you an idea of pure SOFAD i.e. the one that actually will reduce backlog. (in other words it doesn't matter there how much conversions happen).
Q and others...Newbbie here... have been following the blog for some time... I believe come last quarter of 2011, EB2 C and I should make same progress cut off dates wise ( though C has less numbers pending ). With current scenario do you think of a possibility where CIS move the dates to end of 2007 to accommodate EB2 C too?
you mean $ 15-25K?
EB1 holds the key if it drops by 22-25% from last year, most of us will be through:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Hi Soggadu, ( Shobhan babu?)
I do not think DOS will/must care if C has less/more pending numbers over all. Spilled over visas are strictly allocated on PD. Whoever has the oldest PD in EB2 gets the nod. When there are no others in EB2 with that PD, they move to the next date and the same loop goes on. So, this is the reason for dates for EB2-IC moving together during the spill over season.
Now, as a thumb-rule, we can take for granted that EB2-I will at the least catch up with EB2C cut-off date come July. So, more the EB2C moves now, the better for EB2-I in SOFAD season :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by soggadu
I was talking about 15-25K conversions from EB3->2 NOT being realistic.
Agree w you about EB1. 20-25% drop in EB1 would mean dates moving to April-May 2007.
Soggadu, welcome to forum. I think Leo already answered your question above.Quote:
Originally Posted by leo07
Hi..I have been following this blog for quite some time. It's time for me to chime in :-).Quote:
Originally Posted by leo07
I think even EB2C guys need to worry about EB3 -> EB2 porting going by Leo's comment.
EB3->EB2 porting will affect EB2C movement but they might be affected to a somewhat lesser extent than EB2I. When the spillover season starts at first EB2I will move to the current PDs of EB2C. Assuming there are still more visas left (which I hope), EB2I and EB2C will move together from then onwards till the end of the yearly cycle. So, if there are more porting cases, the movement of EB2I & EB2C (after the PD of EB2I is at par with EB2C) will be less. Please correct me if I am wrong in my understanding.
Thanks!
Welcome!Quote:
Originally Posted by immitrickz
That's not correct, EB3C got only 4,150 pending with PD before Aug 2007 compared to almost 11,000 EB2C for the same period. Unless there are more PWMB and/or CP cases EB3C should clear until Aug 2007 by Sept 20112.
veni001,
immitrickz was talking abut EB2C. EB2C need to worry a little, but only b/n JUL-SEP season, because that's when the sharing occurs. Since their EB2 backlog is less, their exposure to risk(EB3-EB2 porting) is obviously limited.
Best!
Quote:
Originally Posted by veni001
Venni .. EB2IC dates will move together when SOFAD kicks in. To move dates to Aug 2007 SOFAD needs to be 30-35K right? Do you think SOFAD will be that high?
Quote:
Originally Posted by veni001
Leo just to clarify your point : there are two kinds of risks to EB2C.Quote:
Originally Posted by leo07
1) Less SOFAD due to overall conversions. This risk stays same for EB2C as EB2I as both share the SOFAD.
2) Less date movement because of EB3C->EB2C conversions. This risk is quite less given not many EB3C exist (much less compared to India).
Now #1 really overshadows any risk in #2. So even if 2 were high ... it only delays EB2C approvals within a year.
Bottomline EB2C is unaffected (or at most affected teh same as EB2I).
Q, I agree there is more than 1 risk. I did not split the risk on country basis for simplicity.Because if there were EB3C porting, that will affect EB2I just as much as EB3I porting affects EB2C.( ah..did I get all my 2's,3's, I's and C's correct :)))
oh, I think veni001 was talking about EB3C? "EB3C should clear until Aug 2007 by Sept 20112."
Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
My bad! I misread it as EB2C.Quote:
Originally Posted by leo07
Regarding EB3C ... there is 4K demand through Aug 2007 w no chance of Spillover. Plus they have 6-7K CP demand ... its unclear how much is pre aug 2007. But considering that ... it looks diffficult for all cases of EB3C to clear by Sep 2011. But Sep 2012 its a certainty.
As Q rightly points out, EB3-C has a very large CP demand, so even 2,803 visas a year might not be enough anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
One thing to remember.
No Country can have a Cut Off Date later than that established for ROW.
I don't think EB3-ROW can reach Aug-07 within 2 years.
In that case, EB3-C would share the same Cut Off Date as EB3-ROW, even if that means they can't receive the full 7% allocation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Agreed,
Even 3k SOFAD to EB2C for FY2011&Fy2012 will clear them up to Aug 2007, means EB2I need to get to AUG2007 also! Yes EB3I-->EB2I will hurt them by not letting them take the bigger share from SOFAD pie!
At some point(looking at 2007-10 PERM approvals), may be FY2014, EB2C may not get any share from SOFAD at all:rolleyes:, all will be absorbed by EB2I backlog to catchup with EB2C.
Very wise observation Spec. Kudos to you!!
If somebody didn't understand what Spec said here ... a simple way to put this is:
The moment a country ceases to have demand less than 7% in a year, it ceases to be retrogressed country. And then everything becomes a pure PD play. (So effectively that country joins ROW).
On the other hand when a country's demand exceeds 7% it splits from ROW and becomes a retrogressed country. E.g. Dominic Republic has become one in FB category.
p.s. - S. Korea however beats me since it continues to exceed 7% yet is part of ROW. Wonder if cross-category (FB / EB) limits have anything to do w it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
Q,Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
See FAQ Post #8
hi Q,
I may be naive, to ask this question, but figured to ask.
VB has been showing 08 May'2006 since Sept 2010. Suppose next month (before spillover), If it advances any further now, Does this mean:
a) Almost everyone with a PD before 08 May'2006 have been allotted a Visa number? (And CIS is looking to accept more applications to fulfill the monthly #)
b) Can a applicant with PD of Jan 2007 assume that, his token# would be called after applicants with PD of May,June,July,Aug,Sept,Oct,Nov,Dec?
If this understanding is incorrect, can you please let me know how to understand the number of applicants before a Priority Date?
Thanks.
Spec,
Thanks. I know that fact. However although visa bulletin says so, its not true that S Korea received extra visas from unused FB visas. They receive it from ROW SPILLOVER within category. And I think this is not so legal since SPILLOVER has to be applied according to PD. USCIS explanation is that S Korea doesn't have as much FB demand so they can get these visas from EB.
Now if we accept what tehy say then it means that S Korea is getting EB visas at the expense of IC because of wrong application of 7% limit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
MyGCTracker, dates are advanced when DoS senses that there is no sufficient demand to fulfil monthly max quota. It may not mean that everybody prior to the current date has received visa (since some cases may have open issues) and some may be in processing. The demand here represents ONLY those cases that are ready to be assigned a visa. Usually yes, cases with earlier PDs will be approved earlier (as long as they are in same category and chargeability). However there could be some timelag since not everything is computerized and it won't be unusual to finding A getting GC earlier than B even though A has a PD later than B. But in my opinion that lag shouldn't be more than 2-3 months MAX. Otherwise it is safe to assume that the case has some issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by mygctracker
The 485 inventory is a good indicator of how many applicants are before a certain date. Of course there are some ifs and buts. But overall its a great indicator.
Well I am not against EB3 to EB2 porting and I think it is fair enuf if you get qualified in few years to attain EB2 job, you should upgrade your case. But what really bothers me is PERM processing time of 3-4 days. When unemployment is so high and American citizen is not getting job, how can DOL overlook this fact and blindly approve cases without auditing them and verifying if it is legitimate. The whole reason behind this is DOL Internal Memo which suggested to it's employee. I think it mentioned something like "why would you audit so many PERMS and not approve them straight away?" (I am trying to locate it in on internet. If someone has link please share it here) . Not only this is unfair to US citizen but also to immigrants like me who was roped into PERM audit for years. These days every tom, dick and harry can get his PERM approved under EB2 without even being getting fully scrutinized from DOL.
I recently come across Senator Grassley's website --> http://grassley.senate.gov/contact.cfm , where I am gonna post this question "How come when unemployment is still at 9.5 %, everyday month thousands of Green Card PERM are getting approved in 5 days that too without even getting audited?"
Senator Grassley's site mentions
Contact Senator Grassley
Senator Grassley has an office in Washington, DC, and six offices in Iowa to serve constituents.
For whistleblowers interested in establishing communication with Senator Grassley regarding wrongdoing within federal agencies or misuse of public dollars please click here.
I would request others also to bring this to Senator Grassley's attention under his whistleblower section.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whereismygclost
Good Luck!Quote:
Originally Posted by whistleblower
Whistleblower, I do not understand what you are trying to say? Are you saying that since you had to wait a long time in PERM audit, others should also be made to wait and remain stuck in Perm audit? How is this helpful to you and others? If some one got PERM approved in a short duration does it amount to fraud automatically?
That's not quite correct either.Quote:
Originally Posted by admin
I agree that there is no actual transfer of additional Visa numbers from FB, otherwise EB3 should consume more than the 28.6% allocation.
It is not correct to say that SK gets them from ROW Spillover at the expense of China and India.
SK are just not deemed to have exceeded the overall 7% limit (25,620 this year) and can therefore consume more of the ROW allocation than they otherwise would be allowed to. This is also potentially true in EB1 and EB2.
The extra visas are consumed at the expense of other Countries within ROW. This just adds insult to EB3-ROW because Mexico and Philippines also take Visa numbers from ROW.
There is no question of China and India's 7% limit being reduced, as can be seen from the FY2010 Statistics, where both received and exceeded the 7% limit. So it is wrong to say
Currently, there is no Fall Across in EB3, since ROW is also retrogressed, so no spare visas are available to 7% limited Countries.Quote:
it means that S Korea is getting EB visas at the expense of IC because of wrong application of 7% limit.
Given their continuing high Visa usage in EB, it does not seem quite right that SK is not also limited to 7% and shown separately to ROW.
I do sympathize with your situation. It is totally unacceptable for audits and appeals to take so long.Quote:
Originally Posted by whistleblower
I would suggest not getting into bed with the devil, just because there is a particular aspect of the system you are unhappy with.
Everybody has different aspects they don't like. If everybody contacts Grassley with their pet hate, then pretty soon the EB Immigration system will be closed down, or at least the bar will become so high that NOBODY can qualify. He certainly has no interest in helping YOU.
Grassley would just love that. He hates Immigration.
It is better to focus on ensuring that DOL becomes more efficient at processing Audits and Appeals and contact the Congressman or Senator relevant to that aim.
There are a couple of interesting threads on ImmInfo Help Grassley kill legal immigration and Article regarding EB2 India
Spec glad you agree that there is no actual transfer and interpretation of 7% should make SK separate from ROW. And that's what I feel and thats why I said SK receives those numbers at the expense of IC not in the sense of 7% allocation but in terms of loss of SOFAD.
If the following quote came from visa bulletin, I would be amazed because this is a clear lie.
Clearly the Family numbers were NOT distributed to allow S Korea to go over the limit. That puts question mark on the whole process of 7% rule and its application.Quote:
The unused Family numbers were distributed within the Employment categories, allowing South Korea to be considerably over the 9,800 Employment limit which would have been in effect had it been an oversubscribed country.
USCIS' interpretation of 7% limit also isn't consistent. Two examples:
1) In 2010 why didn't EB2I get the benefit when FB2I almost became current last year? 2) Why do we see small countries have significant EB or FB backlog? If 26K combined limit were applied then we should NEVER ever see any demand backlogged for smaller countries like Nepal, Guatemala etc. except unless there is audit or other issues.
I think SK applicants are getting undue benefit of USCIS' haphazzard interpretation of 7% rule.
The 7% rule itself is injustice since it discriminates people based on nationality. But since that is part of law, its tough to challenge (not impossible). But then the USCIS interpretation of 7% rule and the false explanation is injustice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
whistleblower, i agree w multiple folks here. Howsoever unfortunate your situation may be, (and mind you almost everybody on this forum will have a story to tell), we shouldn't complain against other immigrants because there already is ample anti-immigrant sentiment running around.
Answers in-line
Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
My answers in red.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
Cases below are all categories regular+premium
USCIS Received Date Applications Filed RFEs Cases Approved Cases Denied % Approved Average Approval Time
February 2011 7 0 0 0 0% N/A
January 2011 77 5 17 0 22% 8 days
December 2010 89 7 28 0 31% 17 days
November 2010 118 9 45 0 38% 24 days
October 2010 121 9 48 0 40% 28 days
September 2010 149 15 77 0 52% 1.8 months
August 2010 191 23 106 1 55% 1.9 months
July 2010 195 23 122 1 63% 2.5 months
June 2010 203 32 153 3 75% 3 months
May 2010 179 25 148 2 83% 2.7 months
April 2010 202 34 173 2 86% 1.9 months
March 2010 162 23 147 1 91% 1.3 months
February 2010 130 24 115 1 88% 1.5 months
January 2010 106 13 94 2 89% 1.6 months
Saw this posting on the Fragomen website:
PERM Processing
DOL has updated its estimated processing times for PERM applications. As of February 4, 2011, DOL was processing non-audited PERM cases that were filed in February 2011, audited cases that were filed in January 2009 and appeals that were filed in June 2008. Government error appeal cases are current.
Agency officials also reported on approval rates for labor certification applications that have been placed into supervised recruitment. Approximately 65% of these cases are denied, 23% are withdrawn by the employer, and just 12% are approved.
@kd2008
Thanks for the data . I'd be curious to run a regression on PERM approvals with a lag( 1 - 12 months). That could throw some light on the trend for next 6 months.
KD thanks. This forum software is not quite rfiendly when posting tables. Can u pls post as jpg to understand better. Also a question - whats teh sourec of the data.
GGS, this is good. What is supervised recruitment. Is that not required for all PERM applications?Quote:
Originally Posted by kd2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by getgreensoon
Q,Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
When the certifying officer suspects the employer did not follow appropriate recruitment efforts then they will notify employer to go through DOL supervised recruitment process.
Especially in tough times, DOL has to do its best to safeguard jobs for American Citizens/GC holders first.
“Supervised Recruitment is one of many tools the Department of Labor uses to safeguard the integrity of the permanent labor certification process and protect job opportunities for American workers,” said Solicitor of Labor Gregory F. Jacob.
DOL estimates that Supervised Recruitment will add at least 180 days to PERM processing!