Q, the source is trackitt - its in the title of my post. I prefer posting it this way coz then one can then copy and paste in it in excel sheet easily.
Printable View
Q, the source is trackitt - its in the title of my post. I prefer posting it this way coz then one can then copy and paste in it in excel sheet easily.
Thanks veni. This is useful. So in other words .... it will not only slow down the process but will also reduce approval rate (12%!!).
Quote:
Originally Posted by veni001
That's ok KD. Its just hard to understand and a problem is that then all blanks are omitted and numbers appear in columns that they do not belong to - rendering the data inaccurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by kd2008
As per 140 trend, the inventory is increasing indicating delay in approving.
IC are different to MP.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
MP receive extra Visa numbers in EB3 because the usage of EB Visas by MP in all other EB Categories is low. They can receive a large amount in EB3 and still fall under the overall 7% limit of 9,800 (based on 140,000 EB visas).
IC cannot benefit in the same way, because they use the full quota in other EB Categories, in particular in EB1 and EB2. If IC used very few visas in EB1 & EB2, then IC could benefit in the same way as MP.
I suspect it is not possible for other individual Countries, since they are aggregated into a group called ROW and the rules therefore apply to the Group. I am not certain of that, however.
Hello,
I have a question..how come all of a sudden the predictions of EB2-I became pessimistic(oct-o6) to optimistic( feb or mar-07) over last 2-3 weeks..
are we estimating more EB1 spillover than we thought of or estimating low EB3-EB2 porting..
Regards..
March VB OUT Guys
http://travel.state.gov/visa/bulleti...etin_5337.html
Summary compared to FEB 2011 Bulletin,
EB2I- No change
EB3I - Three week forward movement
EB2C - One week forward movement
EB3ROW - 3 months forward movement
March 2011 Bulletin Link
EB2 China moved forward by one weekQuote:
Originally Posted by veni001
Good catch, i overlooked, Why would EB2C retrogress:( my bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by getgreensoon
You make an excellent point here. Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
Not sure what you arereferring to. Head of the thread talks about Nov 2006.Quote:
Originally Posted by srinivasj
Thanks. No surprises again.
Good news is EB2C moved ahead 1 week (not retro veni!). This move indicates that there is little to none porting in EB3C which probably means ROW also shouldn't have any porting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by veni001
Agreed,Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
May have very little, which shouldn't be a big factor anyway!
guys we reached 50K views today. Its a small milestone but still that's significant. I hope this thread continues to be as useful as it has been previously. Please don't hesitate to express your views or questions.
Q,Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Great, Congratulations.
Well this is my point. When PERM is audited and goes into supervised recruitment by DOL (In supervised recruitment, DOL official conducts recruitment for the employer), approval rate is 12 %. See the difference in approval rate. I am not saying that all PERM should be audited. But approving PERM in 4-5 days, do you think they are even getting fair scrutiny? When PERM was taking 7-8 months, at least you would think it was getting it's fair share of attention. Some one would argue that DOL was taking so long because they were backlogged. This is B.S, when economy was terrible in 2008-2009, there were hardly any PERMs filed. This could be inferred from I-485 ROW inventory for these years.
If you will go into trackitt and see PERM tracker, there is hardly anyone who is filing in EB3. So are we saying that all these PERM with EB2 requirements legitimate. There is no way this is true. Even if percentage of this is true, it is difficult for me to believe there are no U.S Citizens eligible for these jobs. 73,000 PERMs in 2010 when there is 9.5% unemployment!!!
If most of the people over here think PERM approvals within 3-4 days is alright, well it is upto them to take a backseat and let things happen how it is happening right now. I feel this is not alright and I would like to bring it to someone's attention. I am sick of people recommending others on forum to upgrade cases because it will only take 4 days for PERM, 15 days for I-140 and 4 months for I-485. Getting GC in 5 months is a joke. There is difference between EB3 and EB2 requirements, people receiving GC in EB2 should be one who deserves it. Its pity that people on forums are now suggesting getting online Masters to be qualified for EB2. Online Masters, are you kidding me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by getgreensoon
Q, Spec. I totally agree that Senator Grassley is not proponent of legal immigration. But to me what's wrong is wrong. I would like to stand up for it. if this would end legal immigration, well that's good. Everyone can get out of this rat's race and move on. I do not want to end up as one of those who just have a story to share. I have an option and I will like to pursue that. It is upto an individual to take or leave this option. Everyone has their own opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
Dear Whistleblower: There are things in life that are worth fighting for and there are things in life that are not. I don't see a problem with faster adjudication of PERM filings, for that matter even obtaining an online degree in order to qualify for EB2. There is nothing illegal about it.
"73,000 PERMs in 2010 when there is 9.5% unemployment"
This statement is not accurate. First of 9.5% unemployment is not a valid figure. Second, total unemployment is different from unemployment in "highly skilled" area.
"Getting GC in 5 months is a joke."
I would like to point out that these people in EB3 have been waiting for years, I ask you what is wrong with them porting to EB2. Nothing illegal. Picture this, I am in EB2 row now, if I happen to qualify for EB1 due to my "exceptional research" in the field of "enjoying time with my family and feeling happy with what I have"; I will apply under EB1. I am sure you would agree.
"I feel this is not alright and I would like to bring it to someone's attention."
If you would like to put in the effort, then seek something that will bring relief to maximum number of applicants.
"Spillover" is the best event that happened to EB2, I hope there will be more in the near future.
WB, first and foremost, everybody has a right to say their mind. So do you.
I think differently on this topic. I think the question of whether there are enough americans to do the job is a bit subjective. At some level I feel if that criteria were applied in its letter then there would hardly be 1000 jobs all across US that will satisfy it. I think that lawmakers always intended to keep it broad enough to mean that the labor market in a certain area is having difficulty identifying such labor. In other words it means they didn't want business to bear extraordinary costs in incurring such labor (not that such labor didn't exist). Now yes that sounds unfair to American citizens and yes at some level it is. However, as immigrants EB3s have every right to demonstrate that they fall into EB2 or as H1 a person has every right to try for his GC. I would never try to suspect another person's efforts simply because there are proper agencies that have that mandate and there is tremendous anti-immigrant sentiment running around. Enough said on this subject from my side now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whistleblower
MorningSun you are hilarious!Quote:
Originally Posted by MorningSun
I do agree that this is one of the best discussion groups I have seen, especially for discussing the movement of EB2I/C. I am somewhat disappointed with trackitt while following the discussion threads on the above topic with people making random estimates (either positive or negative) defying any logic and without any understanding of the situation. Thanks for starting this extremely helpful blog for all immigrants.
Gokulram Thanks. Welcome.
PCH, in Sanskrit language there is a saying.. that even Gods love praise... We are just mortals! So thanks for the kind words!
Quote:
Originally Posted by gokulram arunasalam
Quote:
Originally Posted by pch053
Not to mention, we have to go through acerbic comments from few people. I used to visit Trackitt regularly, simply not anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by pch053
Please see the link here: http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.g...rterlydata.cfm
Beginning October 1, 2010 (FY 2011), OFLC is posting cumulative quarterly case disclosure data covering the permanent and temporary labor certification programs as well as the new prevailing wage program.
9299 Certified India
1004 Certified China
8052 Certified ROW
18355 Certified Total
in just three months!
This puts an end to ROW demand debate. Its coming and its huge!
KD2008,Quote:
Originally Posted by kd2008
Thanks for the link, actually the numbers are in the same ballpark when compared to FY 2010 PERM data which means about 25K EB2ROW demand!
FY 2010 PERM Data(Certified)
Total - 70,237
INDIA- 28,930
CHINA - 4,052
MEX- 3,306
PHIL - 3,305
ROW - 30,644
As we have been discussing for some time now EB1 demand is going to be Key for this year's SOFAD.
KD
Thanks. Very useful info. This is a bit disappointing but not much. Even with same approvals as last year there will be reasonable SOFAD (19K or so). But I will wait at least until Q2 data is published since Q1 is likely to have momentum from 2010 PERM APPROVAL SURGE. At the end of 2010 the PERM backlog still had quite a few cases unapproved.
Secondly, even if we don't see much PERM reduction in 2010, its not going to hurt a lot. What will hurt more is SYA i.e. same year approvals.
p.s. - On another note, I have come to the conclusion that ROW 485/labor ratio is around 1.4 rather than 2.2 for EB2I. Historically since 2004 350K ROW PERM were approved and 500K GCs were issued for ROW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kd2008
A few more statistics.
Outcome – Number ---- %
Certified 18,355 -- 78.93%
Denied --- 4,171 -- 17.94%
Withdrawn -- 729 --- 3.13%
Total --- 23,255 - 100.00%
CERTIFIED CASES
Applied - Number ---- %
FY2011 -- 6,979 -- 38.02%
FY2010 -- 9,004 -- 49.05%
FY2009 -- 1,048 --- 5.71%
FY2008 -- 1,298 --- 7.07%
FY2007 ----- 24 --- 0.13%
FY2006 ------ 1 --- 0.01%
FY2005 ------ 1 --- 0.01%
Total -- 18,355 - 100.00%
Applied = Receipt Date of PERM Application by DOL.
COUNTRY --- Number ---- %
China ------ 1,004 --- 5.47%
India ------ 9,299 -- 50.66%
Mexico ------- 710 --- 3.87%
Philippines –- 746 --- 4.06%
ROW -------- 6,596 -- 35.94%
Total ----- 18,355 - 100.00%
ROW+M+P ---- 8,052 -- 43.87%
Spec,
If the decision date was between Oct-Dec 2010 then where r you getting this information from..... see below..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
Spec,
This might be a basic qs for many, however, what does PD stand for? Priority Date / Porting Date?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
Are these EB-2 #'s or consolidated figures for all EB categories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
The Case No. Contains the Julian No of the Application Date.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
eg A-10322-32895 shows the Application Date was the 322nd day of 2010 or 11/18/2010.
From the data, the most noticeable figure was the rise in Indian certifications. Prorated for the whole year, they would represent an extra 8k.
Porting obviously has some thing to do with this, but it is not possible to say how much. Of course, the increased rate might not be sustained throughout the rest of the year. I therefore treat it as interesting rather than definitive.
It is Priority Date, or more correctly the date the application was Received by DOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by haripathhi
I will change the description. Application Date was too long.
They are for all EB categories.Quote:
Originally Posted by dec_01_2006
There is no definitive means to distinguish EB2 from EB3 cases. You must make that judgement.
There are 6-7K cases that you are showing belong to 2011. That doesnt makse sense. How can decision date be in 2010 and PD in 2011?
NEVER MIND. I think you meant USCIS 2011 year. Right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
Because FY2011 started on October 01, 2010! All the Decisions are in FY2011. Therefore it is perfectly feasible for a Certification to have both been Received and Adjudicated in FY2011.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
For example, case A-10322-32895 was Received by DOL on 11/18/2010, which is in FY2011. It was adjudicated on 12/01/2010 and therefore took 13 days to be approved.
Yes I realized that you meant USCIS FY after I posted that comment. Thanks.
I think the statistics you posted on approvals by FY is quite interesting. In Q1 2011 only 7K were approved. At full year that would mean 28K same year approvals. We can add 10K to it for any prior years plus the 18K already approved in Q1 2011. That brings full year PERM approvals in 2011 at 56K as opposed to 70K plus in 2010. That's full 20% reduction YoY in PERM approvals. So overall that's a good story. KD pls take a note. No need to worry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
Q, 20% is a good thing. But seriously I expect the drop to be more drastic then that.
So you are a convert now :-)
I think the best case scenario is a 40% drop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kd2008
if PERM drops by 40% and EB1 by 20% then we will be in Aug 2007?
I don't entirely buy that logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Clearly, the beginning of FY2011 wasn't quite as Current as we thought, judging by the fact that nearly half the approvals related to the previous FY.
Full Year approvals are probably heading for slightly higher than 70k this year IMO - maybe.
Last year, around 75% of approvals in Q1 were for the previous FY year cases, compared to 49% this year.
That eventually turned round and 75% of the approvals in later quarters were for current FY submissions.
We only know how many current year PERMS were certified in Q1 - we don't know how many are pending because the previous year applications needed to be addressed.
Around 10-12% of cases approved appear to be appearing from Audit and Appeal - much the same as last year.
I think it is better to reserve judgement on the matter until we see what happens in the Q2 period.
If the Current Year approval numbers are still relatively low, then it probably says overall approvals will be low.
If they increase, as they did last year, then we might be heading for a similar number to last year.
This logic would make sense if 2010 were no extraordinary year. But 2010 was when PERM backlog was signficantly cleared. That clearance sale has been going right until now. It has to come to end sometime.
In Q1 2010 that sale clearly had barely begun and even if so they had prior years to approve before they approved 2010. That's what the % story is that you described. Ironically your facts are right but conclusion is (IMO) wrong.
Another way to verify my thesis is to look at PERM approval turn around. For 7K cases in 2011 the turnaround is less than 3 months!! Whereas it was much higher in 2010. Right. That tells you that backlog will continue to be cleared while new demand is trickling in (as opposed to flooding in).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
Yey!Quote:
Originally Posted by leo07
So please explain why 49% of approvals relate to FY2010.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
That is a much higher figure than I would have expected, had the situation been as Current as we thought. It is only 25% less than a period when we knew there was a huge backlog to clear.
With such short PERM approval times, the numbers remaining from the previous FY should have been quite small and they weren't - unless you consider 49% to be a small number.
ever since the unemployment rate hit 10% and stayed little below there, companies and DOL started detailed queries (which makes complete sense, nothing wrong). eventhough last month report shows 9% it was because the total workforce went down and not because of new hirings.
Having said that, a well documented Real labor for EB2 has low chances of denial because the unemployment was not huge in such areas, EB3 ICRow may be in the same boat but that is not relevant for this dicussion
You see 2010 numbers because clearly DoL continues to work through the backlog and has not finished yet. (Of course the definition of backlog is not days but months and years worth inventory. Otherwise there will always be some backlog!).
So teh question is how does 49% look compared to 75% prior year? It certainly looks great since that's 33% reduction (not 25%). I think that's significant. Secondly the question is - is 33% good enough. I think the answer depends on when is one's individual PD!
Second proof of what I am saying is that the PERM turnaround time is shortened. All that matters is for new applications it is shortened. For old applications it may very well be high. But that's water under the bridge. The trend of backlog reduction is favorable. The trend of new app turnaround time is favorable. These two together indicate that PERM backlog is being worked through and new applications don't stay longer in the pool. If the pool was accumulating new applications then turn around times can't be where they are now.
49% is not a small number. But 3 months of turnaround (and in some cases as small as 4-5 days!) is a very small number. And that tells a big story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator