EB2 Predictions (Rather Calculations) - 2012

Experts,

A weird situation, maybe someone can help me out.

1. I work for Company A in a Role A. I have been with them for 6 years and they have done my perm and 485, etc.. I have my EAD now it will be 6 months since I filed my 485 by the end of this month.

2. Now I have an offer from firm B in a Role B. Neither are the companies working in the same sector, nor are the roles related. So I assume using AC 21 here is out of the equation.

What are my options if Company B will not sponsor a H1B. I have 2 possible solutions, can you guys tell me if they are legally possible.

1. I convince Company A not to revoke my I-140 and go and start working for company B with my EAD. (I know this is extremely risky, but are there any LEGAL ways around it)

2. With my EAD I can hold multiple jobs. Company A is a very nice and are very humane with the immigration aspect. So if I convince Company A that I will perform 2 jobs at the same time. Can I take a sabbatical from them for a year (get paid from my 401k/profit sharing, or even if I don't get paid from them, does it matter?) and go and work for Company B. If at any stage immigration issues an rfe or asks any question, can I submit a letter from Company A that I am still employed (technically sabbatical still means employed right?) with them and that they intend to employ me after I receive my GC (I will definitely go back and work for them for at least 6 months after my GC for this big favor).

Is option 2 entirely legal and tenable.

Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Murali

If you convince company A for supporting you on any immigration issues, you can join B on EAD. But I doubt option 2 would work because you cannot prove the employment as described in the perm with A while working for B as a full time employee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanmani

Murali

If you convince company A for supporting you on any immigration issues, you can join B on EAD. But I doubt option 2 would work because you cannot prove the employment as described in the perm with A while working for B as a full time employee.

---

Kanmani,

Thanks for your response

2 follow up questions. When you say, I can join B on EAD if company A agrees to support me on immigration issues. Lets say I get an RFE at some point and they ask for a EVL. What do I do?

Can you explain further when you say "I cannot prove employment as described in the Perm". Is taking a sabbatical from company A violating the conditions of the Perm, or Is working full time for Company B violate the perm (even though I am still an employee with A on sabbatical).

Thanks a ton

------------------------------------------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murali83

Kanmani,

Thanks for your response

2 follow up questions. When you say, I can join B on EAD if company A agrees to support me on immigration issues. Lets say I get an RFE at some point and they ask for a EVL. What do I do?
EVL submitted for AOS purpose describes the job is still available for future employment. So you can submit one from Company A even if you are not employed with them.

What do you mean by "I cannot prove employment as described in the Perm". Is taking a sabbatical from company A violating the conditions of the Perm, or Is working full time for Company B violate the perm (even though I am still an employee with A on sabbatical).

I responded to this line of your op "can I submit a letter from Company A that I am still employed (technically sabbatical still means employed right?) "
Suppose you get an rfe for EVL , I understand from the above that you wish to tell them that you have already taken the job(which is not required ) and still employed for the sponsoring employer. In that case you are not complying with the perm description (40 hrs per week)

I have already discussed about leave on absence and in my opinion except for few medical reasons, the employment is not counted.

---

^^ Kanmani

Thanks a ton. I guess i can always get a letter from them for future employment from my current employer.

Thanks for explaining the concept of aos and future employment. So i guess that seals my legal worries.

You made my day

"I have already discussed about leave on absence and in my opinion except for few medical reasons, the employment is not counted."


Kanmani can you please throw some more light on that, or provide me the link for that.
Thank you.

guys... please let me know of your experiences and process for the below topic...thnx...

http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showth...8023#post28023

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stemcell

"I have already discussed about leave on absence and in my opinion except for few medical reasons, the employment is not counted."


Kanmani can you please throw some more light on that, or provide me the link for that.
Thank you.

---

Stemcell,

I couldn't find the earlier discussions. I was mentioning my Indian experience on leave of absence (in specific unpaid leave). During unpaid leave, employees are removed from the payroll and other benefits , are not shown in the organisational strength, there will be a break in the service records etc etc.

I have no US experience, here the legal leave rules mention a 12 week unpaid leave period for medical reasons which may be counted against service, that includes employee must continue to contribute insurance premiums and other payments if necessary .

I am not sure about long unpaid leaves as Murali mentioned so I gave my opinion mixed with my own experience and I personally think those leaves' may be considered as break.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spectator

This is the link to the pdf for the latest version of the USCIS Inventory.

LINK

It looks complete to me.

The csv format data imported fine for me as well.

---

Thanks Spec. I was trying to get to the link on USCIS website (I am using http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/usc...00082ca60aRCRD). The file was incomplete when I last checked and today the link is not working.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by immi2910

Thanks Spec. I was trying to get to the link on USCIS website (I am using http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/usc...00082ca60aRCRD). The file was incomplete when I last checked and today the link is not working.

---

immi2910,

I see what you mean.

They seem to be mucking about with it. The CSV file only contains the first page for all applications now.

Edit: Proper links to both the pdf and csv files were restored on June 22, 2012.

Article on immigrant impact on housing market by the Economist.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graph...meawayfromhome

vizcard, there was a case made by somebody in harvard to provide GCs if a person buys a home. Imagine that would clear all backlog of EB! So 200K houses sold at average 200K price = $40B of impact.

In fact its the economic purchasing power of immigrants that is the main reason why immigration is officially allowed. In principle 3% GDP growth is targeted of which 2% is supposed to come from productivity & 1% from population growth. In advanced countries the local population can't grow at 1% growth and hence immigration is necessary.

Of course that is old school economic theory behind immigration. The digital revolution completely threw the productivity numbers and blew through the roof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vizcard

Article on immigrant impact on housing market by the Economist.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graph...meawayfromhome

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanmani

Stemcell,

I couldn't find the earlier discussions. I was mentioning my Indian experience on leave of absence (in specific unpaid leave). During unpaid leave, employees are removed from the payroll and other benefits , are not shown in the organisational strength, there will be a break in the service records etc etc.

I have no US experience, here the legal leave rules mention a 12 week unpaid leave period for medical reasons which may be counted against service, that includes employee must continue to contribute insurance premiums and other payments if necessary .

I am not sure about long unpaid leaves as Murali mentioned so I gave my opinion mixed with my own experience and I personally think those leaves' may be considered as break.

---

Thank you Kanmani.
In the US one can use FMLA (family medical leave act) for full time employees. I guess one can take upto 6 months leave on it.Not sure about the insurance premiums contributions though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stemcell

Thank you Kanmani.
In the US one can use FMLA (family medical leave act) for full time employees. I guess one can take upto 6 months leave on it.Not sure about the insurance premiums contributions though.

---

What you say is true but i think the length of time differs by state . In any case, the situation described by Murali would not fall in FMLA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stemcell

Thank you Kanmani.
In the US one can use FMLA (family medical leave act) for full time employees. I guess one can take upto 6 months leave on it.Not sure about the insurance premiums contributions though.

---

Stemcell,

Even in the case of FMLA, employees are entitled to a maximum of 12 weeks of job protected unpaid leave in a year/12 month period.

http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/complian...ers/fmlaen.pdf

Does anyone know if a there is a job location change(same position) for a person in h1b. is it enough to file LCA? or should he also file amendement....

USCIS Performance data as of March 2012 is available now ......http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Resources...e_data_qtr.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spectator

soggadu,

Your EB2-ROW calculation would be correct if the ongoing Inventory dropped to zero, but that is not what will happen.

The Inventory will always show a fairly similar figure, since processing is not instantaneous.

Therefore your calculation would become 6,500 + 25,000 + reduction in Inventory

The Inventory change could be positive or negative, but it won't be a big figure and EB2 -ROW should be within their allocation of 34.4k for the year based on your figures.

For your information EB2-WW (EB2-ROW/M/P) used 32.9k visas in FY2009, 27.4k in FY2010 and probably around 33.3k in FY2011 (educated guess).

Spill Across given by EB2-WW was 1.5k in FY2009, 9.7k in FY2010 and around 1.1k in FY2011.

So I would agree that, in the worst case, EB2-WW will not give any spillover in FY2013 and may actually use some of that available from EB1/EB4/EB5.

---

Spec great details from you as always. Let us try to come up with ROW consumption from another angle.
- EB2 I/C probably used 22 - 24K this year. This gives ROW + M + P a wiggle room of 16 - 18K.
- When the brakes were applied that was the time they realized that EB1 will actually use up its entire cap this year, essentially EB1 would not lose anything. EB1 using its full cap was not a surprise considering that last year the Kazarian memo slowed down things, there was a huge reduction of I140 backlog and EB1C usage was quite high. Based on these factors I had made a prediction that Eb1 will probably not give any SOFAD this year.
- From Trackitt 2011 v/s 2012 approvals for EB2 ROW Primary approvals are 507 to 330.
- Now for simplicity let’s assume that EB2 ROW, M & P were all equally impacted with EB2 I/C crossing the line assuming the demands were same this year as well we saw 330/507 = .65 of the approvals from last year. For simplicity I have assumed the ROW numbers from Trackitt to represent ROW + M + P.
- Now .65 of 28 gives the range of 18. The figure of 18K gels well with the guesstimated value of 22K of what Eb2 I/C have consumed assuming the 40K allowed for EB2.
- So if we go by 18K then .35 of this i.e. ~ 6-6.5K was not satiated this year. This kind of wipes out ROW sofad for the upcoming year or at least 75% of it.
Let’s wait and see how things turn out when the FY 2013 starts in October. I believe it will take a minimum of 1 quarter for EB2 ROW to be current on the VB and then another quarter to run current in terms of approvals. ROW can only give SOFAD when they are current in terms of approvals.

i think LCA should be enough. I work in EVC model and changed my client from one location (state) to another. I only had to file for LCA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mesan123

Does anyone know if a there is a job location change(same position) for a person in h1b. is it enough to file LCA? or should he also file amendement....

---

i think LCA should be enough. I work in EVC model and changed my client from one location (state) to another. I only had to file for LCA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanmani

USCIS Performance data as of March 2012 is available now ......http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Resources...e_data_qtr.pdf

---

Kanmani,

Thanks for the heads up. I have been monitoring that page as well.

A couple of quick points from the data.

Employment Based I-485 Approvals were 12k higher in Q2 (43.4k) than they were in Q1 (31.5k). I would think the majority of the increase can be attributed to EB2-IC.

One thing is very clear and confirms my own suspicions. CO badly overshot the statutory limits of 27% per quarter.

27% represents 37,800 approvals per quarter, including Consular Processed cases.

This data does not include CP cases and Q2 shows 43.4k approvals for AOS cases alone.

For the Year To Date, AOS cases are at 75k versus a limit for all approvals of 75.6k.

Even allowing for all the extra approvals in Q2 as being EB2-IC with no CP cases, then CO appears to have used at least 59% of available EB visas in Q1-2 versus a limit of 54%. I had calculated a usage of 60%.

This explains the fairly severe slow down of approvals in Q3 and the retrogression that has been announced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeddyKoochu

Spec great details from you as always. Let us try to come up with ROW consumption from another angle.
- EB2 I/C probably used 22 - 24K this year. This gives ROW + M + P a wiggle room of 16 - 18K.
- When the brakes were applied that was the time they realized that EB1 will actually use up its entire cap this year, essentially EB1 would not lose anything. EB1 using its full cap was not a surprise considering that last year the Kazarian memo slowed down things, there was a huge reduction of I140 backlog and EB1C usage was quite high. Based on these factors I had made a prediction that Eb1 will probably not give any SOFAD this year.
- From Trackitt 2011 v/s 2012 approvals for EB2 ROW Primary approvals are 507 to 330.
- Now for simplicity let’s assume that EB2 ROW, M & P were all equally impacted with EB2 I/C crossing the line assuming the demands were same this year as well we saw 330/507 = .65 of the approvals from last year. For simplicity I have assumed the ROW numbers from Trackitt to represent ROW + M + P.
- Now .65 of 28 gives the range of 18. The figure of 18K gels well with the guesstimated value of 22K of what Eb2 I/C have consumed assuming the 40K allowed for EB2.
- So if we go by 18K then .35 of this i.e. ~ 6-6.5K was not satiated this year. This kind of wipes out ROW sofad for the upcoming year or at least 75% of it.
Let’s wait and see how things turn out when the FY 2013 starts in October. I believe it will take a minimum of 1 quarter for EB2 ROW to be current on the VB and then another quarter to run current in terms of approvals. ROW can only give SOFAD when they are current in terms of approvals.

---

Teddy. Thanks for your thoughts.

I think the EB2-WW gap is anywhere up to 10k, as they seem to have used slightly over 22k to date.

To date, I would say all EB2 has used at least 45k, meaning they need a minimum of 5k spillover from EB1.

That would reduce EB1 allocation to 35k. However, EB1 might expect 4k from EB5, so they would have 39k to play with. If EB1 looks like it will exceed that figure, then Countries, or the Category would have to be retrogressed.

I think it will be mighty close.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spectator

Teddy. Thanks for your thoughts.

I think the EB2-WW gap is anywhere up to 10k, as they seem to have used slightly over 22k to date.

To date, I would say all EB2 has used at least 45k, meaning they need a minimum of 5k spillover from EB1.

That would reduce EB1 allocation to 35k. However, EB1 might expect 4k from EB5, so they would have 39k to play with. If EB1 looks like it will exceed that figure, then Countries, or the Category would have to be retrogressed.

I think it will be mighty close.

---

1. Spec I believe last year EB2 I/C got at minimum 6K SOFAD from EB2 WW. So this should peg EB2 WW usage to ~ 28K last year, I believe this is where our baselines differ.
If we use Trackitt conversion factor assuming same density in the 2 years this gives EB2 WW usage of ~ 18K. I have probably missed how you have arrived at the 22K usage v/s 18K usage for EB2 WW.

I think we are in agreement that EB2 /C seem to have used 22 - 23K.

If EB2 usage had come closer to 45K I believe CO may have put EB2 ROW as Unavailable itself rather than having it as 01-Jan-2009 to allow some more approvals of backlogged cases since even EB1 retrogression is being talked about in this case giving any numbers to Eb2 makes it worse. This is assuming the only other cushion provider EB5 may barely provide 5-6K.

I agree that the numbers are close and everything is in the margin of error so really either scenario is possible and Trackitt ratio is my big assumption. 10K Gap however definitely no SOAFD means from EB2 WW with 6.5K there is a small chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeddyKoochu

1. Spec I believe last year EB2 I/C got at minimum 6K SOFAD from EB2 WW. So this should peg EB2 WW usage to ~ 28K last year, I believe this is where our baselines differ.
If we use Trackitt conversion factor assuming same density in the 2 years this gives EB2 WW usage of ~ 18K. I have probably missed how you have arrived at the 22K usage v/s 18K usage for EB2 WW.

---

Teddy,

Yes, we certainly differ on that.

From the DHS figures, we know that EB2 received 66.8k visas last year, which is 26.8k over the 40k initial allocation - so spillover was 26.8k

We also know that EB1 contributed 14.8k spillover, EB4 contributed 3.2k spillover and EB5 contributed 5.9k spillover. That is a total of 23.9k spillover. EB3 effectively contributed the remainder, since they fell 2.5k short of their allocation and EB as a whole fell short of 140k.

Further, we know that China received 17.5k total EB visas and India received 33.6k total EB visas. We can estimate IC usage in the other EB Categories based on historical values.

That pretty much pegs EB2-IC SOFAD at around 33.5k, especially as we also know that EB2-C received 8.3k visas (perhaps slightly more).

If EB2-IC used 33.5k, then EB2-WW must have used 33.3k. This level would only yield 1.1k fall across within EB2 itself.

A higher calculated EB2-WW usage in FY2011 will yield higher usage numbers for FY2012. In fact, using my figure instead of 28k, you would come out at pretty much 22k.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spectator

Teddy,

Yes, we certainly differ on that.

From the DHS figures, we know that EB2 received 66.8k visas last year, which is 26.8k over the 40k initial allocation - so spillover was 26.8k

We also know that EB1 contributed 14.8k spillover, EB4 contributed 3.2k spillover and EB5 contributed 5.9k spillover. That is a total of 23.9k spillover. EB3 effectively contributed the remainder, since they fell 2.5k short of their allocation and EB as a whole fell short of 140k.

Further, we know that China received 17.5k total EB visas and India received 33.6k total EB visas. We can estimate IC usage in the other EB Categories based on historical values.

That pretty much pegs EB2-IC SOFAD at around 33.5k, especially as we also know that EB2-C received 8.3k visas (perhaps slightly more).

If EB2-IC used 33.5k, then EB2-WW must have used 33.3k. This level would only yield 1.1k fall across within EB2 itself.

A higher calculated EB2-WW usage in FY2011 will yield higher usage numbers for FY2012. In fact, using my figure instead of 28k, you would come out at pretty much 22k.

---

Thanks for the details, everything looks flawless. It is going to be gloomy situation in the upcoming year for EB2 I/C if both EB2 WW and EB1 have the same kind of demand as this year. The dates may just barely cross 2007 at this rate assuming the only SOFAD provider being EB5.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeddyKoochu

Thanks for the details, everything looks flawless. It is going to be gloomy situation in the upcoming year for EB2 I/C if both EB2 WW and EB1 have the same kind of demand as this year. The dates may just barely cross 2007 at this rate assuming the only SOFAD provider being EB5.

---

Teddy, it's not great, is it?

Fall Across from EB2-WW could be a couple of k higher, since I probably used too aggressive a figure for EB1-IC approvals. That would also raise SOFAD to 35.5k.

I still can't fathom why DOS will not publish the FY2011 Visa Statistics. They were published in January last year. Are they hiding something?

I am not quite as pessimistic as you about FY2013. Currently, I am working with 12.5k SOFAD as possible because I think EB1 can give some spillover next year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spectator

Teddy, it's not great, is it?

Fall Across from EB2-WW could be a couple of k higher, since I probably used too aggressive a figure for EB1-IC approvals. That would also raise SOFAD to 35.5k.

I still can't fathom why DOS will not publish the FY2011 Visa Statistics. They were published in January last year. Are they hiding something?

I am not quite as pessimistic as you about FY2013. Currently, I am working with 12.5k SOFAD as possible

---

Spec and Teddy,

Thank you both for the wonderful inputs (though I am not implying the situation to be wonderful).

Spec, when you say 12.5K SOFAD, does that include the 2.8K available to EB2I by default? For FY 2013, I think we should leave China alone, they will go ahead of EB2-I just with their 2.8K.

Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murali83

Spec and Teddy,

Thank you both for the wonderful inputs (though I am not implying the situation to be wonderful).

Spec, when you say 12.5K SOFAD, that is without the 2.8K available to EB2I by default right? For FY 2013, I think we should leave China alone, they will go ahead of EB2-I just with their 2.8K.

Cheers

---

murali,

12.5k SOFAD represents the total available to EB2-IC, including the initial allocation of 5.6k.

Of that, EB2-C would receive 2.8k (only their initial allocation) and EB2-I would receive 9.7k.

Hope that clarifies it for you.

Assuming 20% of cases get left behind, that would move EB2-I to about Feb 2008 by my calculations while EB2-C would move to Jun/Aug 2008. I have assumed a fairly high Porting number, since there is effectively nearly 1.5 years worth to come in FY2013 (a normal year plus those who have had to wait for dates to become available again).

The numbers are subject to change, so that is only a preliminary guess. Please treat it as such.

Spec,

Thanks. I like the fact that you took a fairly high porting number. Better to be conservative in this matter. In the end if we get higher sofad and lesser porting, great, but who knows. Expect the worst and Hope for the Best

Another couple of statistics from the FY2012 Q2 All Forms Report.

Compared to the same time period in the FY2011 Report, Employment Based I-485 Receipts are 58.6k higher and Employment Based I-485 Approvals are 29.0k higher.

That seems to be about in line with the predictions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spectator

Another couple of statistics from the FY2012 Q2 All Forms Report.

Compared to the same time period in the FY2011 Report, Employment Based I-485 Receipts are 58.6k higher and Employment Based I-485 Approvals are 29.0k higher.

That seems to be about in line with the predictions.

---

This tells me that when pushed the USCIS is capable of working faster. Of course I didn't check to see if they increased their head count but I can't imagine they increased it a whole lot.

If you are on H1B, and your initial I-129 mentioned your work location as A and your new work location B is 'not' mentioned in the I-129 then you need an ammendment. If both the locations are mentioned on the initial I-129 then you don't need an ammendment.

Location change is considered a material change and warrants a ammendment. This is what I learned from my attorney.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gc4a_k

i think LCA should be enough. I work in EVC model and changed my client from one location (state) to another. I only had to file for LCA.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sandeep11

If you are on H1B, and your initial I-129 mentioned your work location as A and your new work location B is 'not' mentioned in the I-129 then you need an ammendment. If both the locations are mentioned on the initial I-129 then you don't need an ammendment.

Location change is considered a material change and warrants a ammendment. This is what I learned from my attorney.

---

that i think is when you are not working under EVC model. my employer location did not change, only my client.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sandeep11

Location change is considered a material change and warrants a ammendment. This is what I learned from my attorney.

---

This is a topic of ongoing debate and different attorneys have different opinions. My personal experience is that big Indian companies do not file amendement (just a LCA change). But again each case is different and one needs to go as per what company attorney advices(as there is nothing you can do by yourself...H1 being company filed petition).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suninphx

This is a topic of ongoing debate and different attorneys have different opinions. My personal experience is that big Indian companies do not file amendement (just a LCA change). But again each case is different and one needs to go as per what company attorney advices(as there is nothing you can do by yourself...H1 being company filed petition).

---

The details of change of location matter. If the move is within the same Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) then only a new LCA is needed. Otherwise an amendment is needed. This what my attorney told me as my office might be moving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kd2008

The details of change of location matter. If the move is within the same Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) then only a new LCA is needed. Otherwise an amendment is needed. This what my attorney told me as my office might be moving.

---

As I said there is no agreement on topic 'if location change is material change or not'. USCIS has not enforced the policy in uniform way hence every attorney advices based on his/her stand. Again, nothing you can do by yourself either ways so best way is go by their advice.

I guess, one needs to go for H1B amendment when location is changed. Surprise DHS visits happening more common lately. If the the visiting officer does not find the beneficiary in the location mentioned in I 129 during such visits, the officer will report USCIS that the beneficiary is not in the location mentioned in I 129. After 6 or 7 months, USCIS will send a NOIR of H1B and mostly it will result in revocation from the date on which H1B approved. So this will lead to out of status since the H1B approval date.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gc2008

I guess, one needs to go for H1B amendment when location is changed. Surprise DHS visits happening more common lately. If the the visiting officer does not find the beneficiary in the location mentioned in I 129 during such visits, the officer will report USCIS that the beneficiary is not in the location mentioned in I 129. After 6 or 7 months, USCIS will send a NOIR of H1B and mostly it will result in revocation from the date on which H1B approved. So this will lead to out of status since the H1B approval date.

---

If beneficiary is not found at the location the officer calls HR and takes new location details. And why would beneficiary out of status?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suninphx

If beneficiary is not found at the location the officer calls HR and takes new location details. And why would beneficiary out of status?

---

If the beneficiary is not present at the location mentioned in the i129, then you are right officer will call HR. Even after this officer concludes that there is no employer and employee relationship exist (and hence H1B rules been violated) as i129 was not updated and will send report to USCIS and recommend USCIS for H1B revocation. The beneficiary will be out of status as they will revoke H1B from the date of that particular H1B approval i.e they backdate the revocation. There are lot of cases effected because of this and you can find lots of discussions in trackitt and ** websites. Even Ron mentioned and it was discussed by Q before.

http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showth...ocation-Change

Posts from trackitt:

http://www.trackitt.com/usa-discussi...got-ead-and-ap
http://www.trackitt.com/usa-discussi...-please-advice
http://www.trackitt.com/usa-discussi...tent-of-revoke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spectator

Another couple of statistics from the FY2012 Q2 All Forms Report.

Compared to the same time period in the FY2011 Report, Employment Based I-485 Receipts are 58.6k higher and Employment Based I-485 Approvals are 29.0k higher.
That seems to be about in line with the predictions.

---

That is beacuse last year same period no new from EB2 I & C applications were accepted and also approvals of the GC were done after March. I still think this is not something unusal as this year new 485 applications were accepted and GC's were issued. But the number is within in the range.

I remmeber last year they issued close to 43k per quarter, this year also they followed same rule and still puzzling to me what hapened to 43K visas for 3rd quarter.