Printable View
I have always had very good experiences with the lawyers/paralegals on my cases. True they tend to take time but I attribute that to 3 reasons
1. Volume of work
2. Batch processing
3. Extra due diligence (I have Fragomen and they had some issues a few yrs back).
I feel like a little better work upfront will minimize the risk of RFEs later so I don't mind if it's reason#3.
Guys, read this from CMQuote:
Originally Posted by nishant2200
http://us-non-immigrants.blogspot.co...o-january.html
CM also expecting retrogression is not possible before this summer, which is good news and as well if it happens dates moves back to last quarter of 2008 or to sometime in 2009 PD. As Nishant mentioned CM must be CO's friend.
Some of the statements in the AILA document are still bugging me.
It says:
Firstly, it says the low usage is an "assumption". That is not the same as saying EB1 usage will be low based on usage to date.Quote:
Low usage of EB-1 numbers is assumed again this year. A fall-down of 12,000 additional EB-1 numbers into EB-2 is calculated into Mr. Oppenheim's projections for 2012, although he thinks EB-1 number availability may be down by approximately 1,000 as compared to last year, due to heavier EB-5 usage since unused EB-5 numbers "spill up" to EB-1 and then down to EB-2.
More important, is the statement about EB5 usage. That is completely at odds with what has been reported in the EB5 Stakeholders Meeting of Jan 23, 2012.
That reported EB5 visa usage in FY2012 YTD of 2,364 (*Estimate of FY12 Visas Issued YTD, reported by the Department of State as of 01/17/2012) versus 3,463 for the whole of FY2011. That is in line with the steadily increasing Receipt Levels.
So, how can there be an expectation that EB5 will only contribute 1,000 less visas in FY2012? That would mean that only a further 2,100 visas will be used by EB5 in the remaining nearly 3 quarters.
The statements in the AILA document attributed to CO may be great to justify continuing to move the COD forward, but they raise as many questions as they answer.
There is a distinct lack of any hard numbers in the statement.
[QUOTE=Spectator;19336]Some of the statements in the AILA document are still bugging me.
It says:
Firstly, it says the low usage is an "assumption". That is not the same as saying EB1 usage will be low based on usage to date.
More important, is the statement about EB5 usage. That is completely at odds with what has been reported in the EB5 Stakeholders Meeting of Jan 23, 2012.
That reported EB5 visa usage in FY2012 YTD of 2,364 (*Estimate of FY12 Visas Issued YTD, reported by the Department of State as of 01/17/2012) versus 3,463 for the whole of FY2011. That is in line with the steadily increasing Receipt Levels.
So, how can there be an expectation that EB5 will only contribute 1,000 less visas in FY2012? That would mean that only a further 2,100 visas will be used by EB5 in the remaining nearly 3 quarters.
The statements in the AILA document attributed to CO may be great to justify continuing to move the COD forward, but they raise as many questions as they answer.
There is a distinct lack of any hard numbers in the statement.[/QUOTE]
And you are surprised by this why? they need folks like the gurus here to make sense of whats going on. Otherwise its shoot from the hip.
34% YTD usage of visas across all EB categories
According to trackitt approvals per month for all categories:
Oct 2011 - 309
Nov 2011 - 228
Dec 2011 - 245
Jan 2012 - 155 so far
I can see why Mr. CO expected visa usage to be more than 34%. He allocated ~8.5K to EB2IC in Oct 2011 so the visa usage should be more than normal and not less.
But this brings perplexing thoughts. As usual USCIS is a big black box that nobody can decipher and their numbers most unreliable. Has their processing been slowing down? If so, why? They had a huge pending inventory at the start of the fiscal year. They have built a considerable pipeline in the past few months with the EB2IC date movement by Mr. CO.
In all, it is great that they are slow as more folks get to file I-485 as the dates progress. My suspicion is that USCIS is playing a little game here. They will come with the news that "oh look what we found ..a large pile of files" some time in April/May. Turds!
Spec, talking about missing hard data, this is what's confusing me as I look at the graph of I-140 receipts again and again.
From that graph, Total EB2 receipts (excluding NIW) for FY 2009 were ~18000. Assuming a 100% approval rate and assuming all of the approved cases went on to file 485 that year, that would mean that 18000 visas for EB2 were issued that year based on the receipts. Now, there are 40332 EB2 visas available. Since I/C weren't current, let's assume that of the 40332, 5.6k I/C were allocated. That leaves 34732 EB2 left. Assuming 18000 usage, that leaves 34732 - 18000 = 16732 EB2 ROW available for spillover in that year.
Looking at your spillover numbers in the Data and Facts section, that was not the case. So it doesn't make sense.
Can someone please point out what I am missing in the calculation above? Being new to this, I am hoping that it's something obvious..
Have you considered dependents in your calculation. 1 I140 is not = 1 I485.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdeeds
Hope that last line happens and date move to mid 2011.....so that people can get atleast EAD's
Quote:
Originally Posted by kd2008
An explanation by Attorny Ron...why there are moving EB2 I/C dates in that pace...
"Since EB3 no longer receives any "fall down" visas from the EB2 category, supply is fixed at approximately 40,000 overall and 2,800 for single state limited countries. Existing known demand is sufficient for the Visa Office to create very accurate cutoff dates for this category. Please keep in mind that the China/India EB2 cutoff date advances are artificial. That is, they have been moved substantially further forward than would be the case if the potential demand were realized. Let me explain this a bit.
For purposes of discussing the creation of cutoff dates, there is actual demand and potential demand. Actual demand manifests itself though immediate requests for visa numbers. That is, when the NVC submits a list of "documentarily qualified" applicants, or the USCIS asks for a specific visa in order to approve and adjustment application, that is actual demand. Potential demand can be found in approved I-140 petitions and pending AOS applications that have not been acted upon.
If all potential demand resolved into documentarily qualified applicants at the NVC, or approved AOS cases, then we would see a significant retrogression of cutoff dates - likely back to 2007 for China/India EB2. Of course, this has never happened, nor is it likely to happen. Rather, these potential cases will resolve into actual cases over an extended period of time.
The problem that the Visa Office has is that they are mandated with making sure that the entire immigrant visa quota is used each year and that no visas are wasted. Since the USCIS is not holding up their end of the bargain by processing their pending AOS cases to completion (at least in numbers large enough to matter), the Visa Office has no choice by to advance cutoff dates in order to qualify more applicants who have selected overseas consular processing. The overseas visa posts will take up the slack left by the USCIS failure to approve enough AOS cases. "
We will need to know the % of ROW filers out of 18000 receipts. Because ROW only could have filed I485 as IC was not current. Another thing to note that many times there is concurrent filing for catagories which are current. And we have to factor in dependents as Vizcard suggested.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdeeds
KD, what's the incentive for the USCIS to play games here? A temporary fee influx results in a long term for free service for them. I keep harping back to the actual words used in the bulletins and elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by kd2008
There is never any mention of USCIS processing rate etc. in these bulletins. For a brief moment, can we all leave aside all the assumptions that we have gone by (and which have worked in the past) and just delve into the actual facts coming out. If it is indeed that the filings are 50% of what they expected, can we look at the data (including the I-140 filings drop in 2008 and 2009) and see if we can figure out any logical reasons to corraborate the drop in filings. Read 'filings' and not 'documentary qualified'.Quote:
USCIS has reported that the rate of new filings is currently far below that which they had anticipated, prompting an even more aggressive movement of the cut-off date for January and possibly beyond.
I am trying to do the same but my head is already spinning..so I will be asking a lot of dumb questions here.
As vizcard pointed out, you need to consider dependents. The 18k would become 36.9k. Also, because of processing times of both I-140 and I-485, there is a rollover effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdeeds
The actual reported EB2 approvals for FY2009 in the DOS Visa Statistics were:
EB2 - FY2009
China -------- 3,045
India ------- 10,106
Mexico --------- 922
Philippines -- 1,850
ROW --------- 30,093
Total ------- 46,016
Posted on murthy.com :
NewsFlash! March 2012 Visa Bulletin Predictions: EB2 to Advance Again! Posted 24.Jan.2012
The U.S. Department of State (DOS) Visa Office has confirmed that EB2 priority dates will advance again in the March 2012 Visa Bulletin. The exact amount of forward movement is not yet known, as it largely depends upon case filing rates. The DOS projects that the EB2 cutoff dates will move by at least a few months in March 2012. The DOS estimates that an advance of as much as six months could occur. They stated that it is unlikely that the dates will advance by a full year. Updates on this important topic will be reported to MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers as reliable information becomes available.
If Murthy.com says so - I think people can take it to bank. Good luck EB2/3 ICs!
Quote:
Originally Posted by operas
Maybe several months later Mr CO will bull shit again: after careful
examination and data collection, we find the total number of applications is
way bigger than our original estimation in January. Therefore, we have to
retrogress the EB2 category to 2007.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kd2008
qbf
You r right. That's going to happen at some point of time. DOS / USCIS are well coordinated here. As of now the policy is to intake as many as they can and they are in that mode. So they are making up stories to fit that strategy. Sooner or later this party is going to end and good (oops bad) old days of retrogression will be here. I know this is not going to go well with a lot of folks. But hey we are not the ones to play to the gallery. Our objective is to bring clarity ... not exuberance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qblogfan
I dont think anyone has used the word "confirmed" up to now. Its been speculative. So the fact that Murthy has put out something like this is promising.Quote:
Originally Posted by vgraj1
interpolation from CO's talk to AILA:
1. monthly visa number 45%/5=9%
2. quarterly visa number=9%*3=27%.
3. by 1/19/2012, he used 34% quota, in this month we have 4*9%-34%=2% quota left, maybe that's why the approval of EB2 is slowing down.
Looks like he is allocating exactly 27% quota now. Again this guy excutes immigration law based on his personal understanding. In the past several years he never excuted 27% rule. Now this is the first time to have 27% quarter quota after being pushed by several immigration organizations.
If CO had followed the 27% rule last year, the people with PD 2006.5-2006.8 should have received their GC 10 months earlier than their actual received date.
I saw a lot of discrepancy in the operation of this system. It's unfair to many folks!
Yes, you are exactly right. I think all these stories are made up because they need excuces to move PD forward.
I am glad many folks get a opportunity to get EAD/AP. I hope all of us can get out of this dark hole as soon as possible!
Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Quote:
Originally Posted by qblogfan
I don't want to speak on behalf of everyone here but I think retrogression is a foregone conclusion here. Question is how far back will it go. Is it 2007? or Q1 2008 as some on here have suggested.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
http://www.ilw.com/articles/2012,0124-Musillo.shtm
Confirmation of forward movement.
Again, the six month number is an AILA prediction and not quoted words of Mr. CO.
Agree. Temporarily it can retro to where ever. Again that too will be discretionary. However the dates must bounce back to Q1 2008 around Sep 2012.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vizcard
http://www.cilawgroup.com/news/2012/...nuary-19-2012/
Another confirmation of forward movement in March 2012 bulletin. This talks about holding the dates for a few months before retrogressing them.
All of them say six months is possible.
While filing for I-485/EAD, do we need to sign or write my name on back of photos?
Our lawyer asked us to write our names, it was in a specific way, dont remember if it was last name, first name or first name last name. We wrote our names as asked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tendlya