EB2-3 Predictions (Rather Calculations) - 2013

Administrators - please remove or move this to appropriate threads if you feel it is inappropriate here...

Predictions vs Calculations:

In the current state, with the information we have - which one will be effective - a prediction based on past/present facts or calculations based on the #s published by USCIS.

IMHO - prediction based on experience and past/present facts will be more effective becos the kind of data (demand data, perm/140 data, trackitt data, etc) we are getting now are either erratic (think abt the latest Mar'13 demand data) or too junkie to base our calculations on...

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

@username I just read your posting, I can tell you firsthand what happened in one of my close friend and colleague for 5 years. He was also with a company which was blacklisted for H1B issues, his I140 took 3 years for approval (This was during blacklist period) and I-485 was approved without any issues. He did not contemplate change of employers because employer would have revoked I140 and he simply did not want to go through the motions again. In your specific case you would probably like to dissociate yourself from the company as much as possible so AC21 may help in that regard or you can hold tight and be greened this year, sheer bad luck that you were not greened last year itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spectator

Vizcard,

Porting can still give an EB3 applicant an advantage of up to 6 years (whether it be ROW or India), so I don't see how the current movement is going to have any effect.

I would certainly leave EB3-P out of the equation. Currently, they are moving even slower than EB3-I and are now 10 months behind EB3-ROW-M. You could replace them with EB3-C, since they looks like they will catch EB3-ROW-M in the May or June VB.

---

I agree in theory. But PDs 7/2007 and prior are current. PDs 3/2008 onwards would barely qualify because of the 5 yr work experience requirement. Whatever porting will be next to nothing. Wouldn't it be fairly safe to say that EB3 ROW is not contributing to the porting "concern".

GRP - it's always a combination of both. One can't just rely on past data - nor one can solely rely on current data which tends to be incomplete most of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geeaarpee

Administrators - please remove or move this to appropriate threads if you feel it is inappropriate here...

Predictions vs Calculations:

In the current state, with the information we have - which one will be effective - a prediction based on past/present facts or calculations based on the #s published by USCIS.

IMHO - prediction based on experience and past/present facts will be more effective becos the kind of data (demand data, perm/140 data, trackitt data, etc) we are getting now are either erratic (think abt the latest Mar'13 demand data) or too junkie to base our calculations on...

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

---

@Teddy

Whats your logic being Mid of 2008
3k - Allocated
4k - Porting
13K- Jun1st 2008

we would need a total of 20k Visas to EB2I for the dates to reach Jun1st 2008/ - how do you see those numbers coming?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeddyKoochu

Spec thanks to you for sharing the 18K spillover with the immigrant community your postings have been shared all over, this is by far the best news this year. Now its official in all published data’s.

All EB2-India folks hang in tight do not worry about intermediate visa bulletins till Jul or till whenever they decide to start spillover. Out of these 18K, 12K will be an extra to EB2 – I / C. Porting is at the same old level however what is happening is that EB2 was unavailable for 6 months last year so it created a backlog. Porting does not exceed 4K (This is just my ball park thought, calculations for previous years showed 3K) a year however as we had a 6 month blackout last year we can expect 6K this year. The monthly cap of 250 – 300 is not enough to satiate this hence no movement. Dates will definitely hit mid 2008 for sure even with the ever increasing inventory thanks to the 12k additional SOFAD that we can bank on even if some of the other usages / past year backlogs may be higher.

---

With so many applications already having been approved from a large pool of 2008 applicants can't we expect an initial surge into late 2008? It will of course retrogress but how much clarity in terms of approvable 485s does Oppenheim have. I think things are quite muddled at this point, we just have to wait and see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by triplet

With so many applications already having been approved from a large pool of 2008 applicants can't we expect an initial surge into late 2008? It will of course retrogress but how much clarity in terms of approvable 485s does Oppenheim have. I think things are quite muddled at this point, we just have to wait and see.

---

You can see from the Demand Data that 2008 has at least 16k cases alone.

Progress to Mid March 2008 might be quicker because a reasonable % of those were approved last year.

After that large numbers remain.

You can get an idea of the number of Trackitt cases submitted last year and how many were approved/remain here.

I don't think CO will move the dates much beyond what he feels is necessary to use up the available numbers. He has pretty good visibility on those numbers.

Well...I'm still unsure why till mid March 2008 had more approved percentage. Last FY cutoff date moved from Nov 2007 to Sep 2008 in one month (VB bulletin Dec 11). So effectively Feb 2008 and June 2008 PD have same probability of getting approved. It may be possible that trackitt data is not complete.
Am I missing something here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erikbond101

Well...I'm still unsure why till mid March 2008 had more approved percentage. Last FY cutoff date moved from Nov 2007 to Sep 2008 in one month (VB bulletin Dec 11). So effectively Feb 2008 and June 2008 PD have same probability of getting approved. It may be possible that trackitt data is not complete.
Am I missing something here?

---

erikbond101,

I think what you are saying is incorrect.

The December 2011 VB moved the Cut Off Dates from 01NOV07 to 15MAR08.

Therefore EB2-I cases with a PD up to March 14, 2008 had a full extra month to be adjudicated and approved.

The January 2012 VB moved the Cut Off Date to 01JAN09 and included the rest of 2008 PD cases.

The VB movements for EB India cases can be found here in a handy format.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spectator

erikbond101,

I think what you are saying is incorrect.

The December 2011 VB moved the Cut Off Dates from 01NOV07 to 15MAR08.

Therefore EB2-I cases with a PD up to March 14, 2008 had a full extra month to be adjudicated and approved.

The January 2012 VB moved the Cut Off Date to 01JAN09 and included the rest of 2008 PD cases.

The VB movements for EB India cases can be found here in a handy format.

---

Spec or other gurus I have a question. First Spec thanks for the 18000 visa news that was awesome. My question is since FB visas are allocated and CO knows he has extra visas that are more or less guaranteed why wont he move the dates now? whats the logic waiting for last quarter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sbhagwat2000

Spec or other gurus I have a question. First Spec thanks for the 18000 visa news that was awesome. My question is since FB visas are allocated and CO knows he has extra visas that are more or less guaranteed why wont he move the dates now? whats the logic waiting for last quarter.

---

sbhagwat2000,

Which (or how many) visas do you think are absolutely guaranteed to be available to EB2-I such that they could be given now and that CO wouldn't potentially find himself in the same situation as last year?

Also bear in mind that CO has an overall 27% limit on the number of visas that can be issued in each of the first three quarters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spectator

sbhagwat2000,

Which (or how many) visas do you think are absolutely guaranteed to be available to EB2-I such that they could be given now and that CO wouldn't potentially find himself in the same situation as last year?

Also bear in mind that CO has an overall 27% limit on the number of visas that can be issued in each of the first three quarters.

---

Spec, I'm not trying to argue, but I think that's what CO's job right? - to have a strategy so that you don't misuse as well as don't waste the quota and we all think that he is trying to find a formula for the past 10+ yrs which is absolutely RIDICUOLOUS! What he is doing year after year is trying different strategies (so called) which I think even a high school kid can do. Wasn't he ashamed to say that I underused last year's FB quota (not 1 or 2 1000s but 18k) and I'm giving it this year to EB - he should've been fired the next day - man, there are 10s of 1000s people waiting here for years to bring their beloved family members :(

If CO has to make sure that he doesn't misuse other categories' visas and also not to waste any of the 158k+ visas then the only way I think he would be making everyone current in the Sep'13 VB. What happened last year was utter foolishness and it was widely agreed by everyone that what happened during the summer'07 was the foolishness to the extreme. If we go by CO's strategy the foolishness will repeat or atleast in a new form!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geeaarpee

Spec, I'm not trying to argue, but I think that's what CO's job right? - to have a strategy so that you don't misuse as well as don't waste the quota and we all think that he is trying to find a formula for the past 10+ yrs which is absolutely RIDICUOLOUS! What he is doing year after year is trying different strategies (so called) which I think even a high school kid can do. Wasn't he ashamed to say that I underused last year's FB quota (not 1 or 2 1000s but 18k) and I'm giving it this year to EB - he should've been fired the next day - man, there are 10s of 1000s people waiting here for years to bring their beloved family members :(

If CO has to make sure that he doesn't misuse other categories' visas and also not to waste any of the 158k+ visas then the only way I think he would be making everyone current in the Sep'13 VB. What happened last year was utter foolishness and it was widely agreed by everyone that what happened during the summer'07 was the foolishness to the extreme. If we go by CO's strategy the foolishness will repeat or atleast in a new form!

---

geeaarpee,
I can understand your frustration, Visa allocation is a complex process involving various governmental agencies.
EB Visa demand and spillover vary based economic conditions, so "CO" can't follow one simple method from year-to-year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veni001

geeaarpee,
I can understand your frustration, Visa allocation is a complex process involving various governmental agencies.
EB Visa demand and spillover vary based economic conditions, so "CO" can't follow one simple method from year-to-year.

---

I totally agree... I'm not frustrated but kinda puzzled with spec's earlier comment - probably I might have mis-read that he is speaking "FOR" CO's strategies/decisions.

One thing I would say as a last comment on this subject - Don't break it until it breaks you - I'm not asking CO to break it (anyways he is doing it by underusing/misusing the visas), but he can very well amend it. It happened in the past, like stopping substitution labors, the way SOFAD changed and all these happened in a fairly less significant amount of time - if CO thinks porting is a problem, he should fix it (atleast try to). You don't live with a headache for yrs and do nothing or put the blame on it everytime your actions/decisions failed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spectator

sbhagwat2000,
Also bear in mind that CO has an overall 27% limit on the number of visas that can be issued in each of the first three quarters.

---

Spec,
Do you mean, 27% visas (of the yearly quota) should be allocated each quarter(assuming CO enforces the limit). Did CO violate that in FY2012 by overusing the visas in first 2 quarters?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gc_soon

Spec,
Do you mean, 27% visas (of the yearly quota) should be allocated each quarter(assuming CO enforces the limit). Did CO violate that in FY2012 by overusing the visas in first 2 quarters?

---

The law sets an overall maximum usage of 27% in each of the first 3 quarters.

EB probably did exceed that number, but it doesn't necessarily mean the overall limit was breached if, for example FB approvals were low.

The information is not published, but the USCIS figures for the period suggest that was the case (at least the EB side of the equation).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geeaarpee

Wasn't he ashamed to say that I underused last year's FB quota (not 1 or 2 1000s but 18k) and I'm giving it this year to EB - he should've been fired the next day - man, there are 10s of 1000s people waiting here for years to bring their beloved family members :(

---

GRP,

If you analyse how the FB visa numbers are distributed , you will be surprised to find the reason behind the wastage.

Almost 90% of them are consular processed.

The National visa center initiates a FB case which is ready for adjudication and collects fees , forward the file to the respective consular post for interview. Each Consulate around the world requests Mr.CO for visa number and reserve it. Thats all the duty of Mr.CO , he cannot micro manage the consulates' to return the visa number not used due to administrative delay.

Imagine, somebody from a nook village of India attends the interview for FB visa, he/she is sent back for additional documents say for an formal Birth Certificate, we know how difficult to get a new BC in the villages by reading experiences in trackitt, imagine chinese have to submit translated, notorised form of each and every document. For the same reason, USCIS has extended the RFE response time for certain queries to 180 days !

Meanwhile, the consulate will hold the Visa number for 180 days ( + time spent on interview intiation) with a suspense tone. If the Fiscal Year is over by the time, the visa number is a waste. ( granted to EB, the following year)

I am not speaking for Mr.CO here, But it is very difficult to pinpoint, where the fault lies in the case of FB wastages.

I think what CO did last year was a nice thing, not foolish. Many people including me are fortunate to have an EAD/AP after waiting for almost 4 years. I understand the disappointment of May-Dec 2010 PDs but that happens with any non current COD.

Another issue with FB is the wait time. A close relative such as brother/sister or parent will loose interest over time, hence pending applications will gather dust and 18 K world wide wastage is not a large number. Frankly we also do not know how many issued GCs are being wasted in family category due to lack of interest over time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanmani

GRP,

If you analyse how the FB visa numbers are distributed , you will be surprised to find the reason behind the wastage.

Almost 90% of them are consular processed.

The National visa center initiates a FB case which is ready for adjudication and collects fees , forward the file to the respective consular post for interview. Each Consulate around the world requests Mr.CO for visa number and reserve it. Thats all the duty of Mr.CO , he cannot micro manage the consulates' to return the visa number not used due to administrative delay.

Imagine, somebody from a nook village of India attends the interview for FB visa, he/she is sent back for additional documents say for an formal Birth Certificate, we know how difficult to get a new BC in the villages by reading experiences in trackitt, imagine chinese have to submit translated, notorised form of each and every document. For the same reason, USCIS has extended the RFE response time for certain queries to 180 days !

Meanwhile, the consulate will hold the Visa number for 180 days ( + time spent on interview intiation) with a suspense tone. If the Fiscal Year is over by the time, the visa number is a waste. ( granted to EB, the following year)

I am not speaking for Mr.CO here, But it is very difficult to pinpoint, where the fault lies in the case of FB wastages.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bvsamrat

Another issue with FB is the wait time. A close relative such as brother/sister or parent will loose interest over time, hence pending applications will gather dust and 18 K world wide wastage is not a large number. Frankly we also do not know how many issued GCs are being wasted in family category due to lack of interest over time?

---

First of all 18K wastage is a very significant number - considering the backlog in FB immigration. The wait time is due to this kind of wastage. A simple solution is to not request a visa number until an applicant is "documentarily qualified" like in EB immigration.

Secondly, "Loss of interest" means the GC for that applicant is a "nice to have" rather than a "must have". That's also part of the reason why there is a lot more noise from EB immigration where in most cases a GC is a "must have".

PS: parents are not part of any quota for GC. As for brothers/sisters, I personally have no problem with them being the lowest priority considering that the categories above them are related to spouses & children.

Gurus - a question about the range of possible retrogression that might happen on Oct 13 VB & FY2014

Assuming that all the Demand Data till Dec 2007 for sure is going to be cleared - when dates move from Sept 04 - Dec 2007. And lets assume dates are retrogressed to Dec 2006 - Do you think the Porting between Sept04 - dec 06 (New retrogressed date) would be sufficient type enough for quota of FY2014. And probably a lot of demand would get build for Jan07-dec 07 as well. Do you expect Dates to move into 2009 in Q4 FY 2014 assuming average or below average visas in FY2014?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bvsamrat

Another issue with FB is the wait time. A close relative such as brother/sister or parent will loose interest over time, hence pending applications will gather dust and 18 K world wide wastage is not a large number. Frankly we also do not know how many issued GCs are being wasted in family category due to lack of interest over time?

---

Spec how has CO done on that 27%. Do we see him utilizing that 27% every quarter? What's the historical record?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spectator

The law sets an overall maximum usage of 27% in each of the first 3 quarters.

EB probably did exceed that number, but it doesn't necessarily mean the overall limit was breached if, for example FB approvals were low.

The information is not published, but the USCIS figures for the period suggest that was the case (at least the EB side of the equation).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

Spec how has CO done on that 27%. Do we see him utilizing that 27% every quarter? What's the historical record?

---

Q,

That's a good question, which is difficult to answer because the figure is not published.

For EB, based on the published USCIS figures and figures I have kept over the years, he seems to have done a reasonable job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanmani

GRP,

If you analyse how the FB visa numbers are distributed , you will be surprised to find the reason behind the wastage.

Almost 90% of them are consular processed.

The National visa center initiates a FB case which is ready for adjudication and collects fees , forward the file to the respective consular post for interview. Each Consulate around the world requests Mr.CO for visa number and reserve it. Thats all the duty of Mr.CO , he cannot micro manage the consulates' to return the visa number not used due to administrative delay.

Imagine, somebody from a nook village of India attends the interview for FB visa, he/she is sent back for additional documents say for an formal Birth Certificate, we know how difficult to get a new BC in the villages by reading experiences in trackitt, imagine chinese have to submit translated, notorised form of each and every document. For the same reason, USCIS has extended the RFE response time for certain queries to 180 days !

Meanwhile, the consulate will hold the Visa number for 180 days ( + time spent on interview intiation) with a suspense tone. If the Fiscal Year is over by the time, the visa number is a waste. ( granted to EB, the following year)

I am not speaking for Mr.CO here, But it is very difficult to pinpoint, where the fault lies in the case of FB wastages.

---

I suspect returns are a big problem and can be very Category and Country specific.

The only data I have ever seen related to EB3 and was released as part of the Chinese lawsuit against DOS for the low number of visas received by EB3-C.

Bear in mind that EB3-C has an exceptionally high CP rate.

Returns were a big problem for EB3-C, averaging 50%, but ranging from 20% to 70% per quarter.

For instance, in FY2009 when EB3-C only received 1,077 visas, DOS allocated 2,569 visas, but 1,492 were returned.

In EB3 as a whole, the level of returns was 10-15%. In that same year DOS allocated 44,588 visas and 4,810 were returned.

Some of the returns could be reused, but returns late in the FY would impact the total approvals.

The vast majority of visas wasted in FB in FY2012 were in F2A Exempt (67.5%). Since all Mexico F2A fall under that Category, I have a suspicion that there was a problem in that area.

I don't think we will ever know the full reasons.

If dates will retrogress to Dec 06, then current PD will include porters between Jan 2003-Dec 06, since EB3-I date cutoff will be around that time. I do not think it is possible to set retrogress date in 2006 by CO. It will be at least in 2005 or in 2004. Well FY2014 is faraway...and it depends on so many factors, but if we assume same amount of spillovers as previous year and this year then yes it is possible to reach 2009 with 20K SOFAD this year and 20K SOFAD next year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SeekingGC2013

Gurus - a question about the range of possible retrogression that might happen on Oct 13 VB & FY2014

Assuming that all the Demand Data till Dec 2007 for sure is going to be cleared - when dates move from Sept 04 - Dec 2007. And lets assume dates are retrogressed to Dec 2006 - Do you think the Porting between Sept04 - dec 06 (New retrogressed date) would be sufficient type enough for quota of FY2014. And probably a lot of demand would get build for Jan07-dec 07 as well. Do you expect Dates to move into 2009 in Q4 FY 2014 assuming average or below average visas in FY2014?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanmani

GRP,

Imagine, somebody from a nook village of India attends the interview for FB visa, he/she is sent back for additional documents say for an formal Birth Certificate, we know how difficult to get a new BC in the villages by reading experiences in trackitt, imagine chinese have to submit translated, notorised form of each and every document. For the same reason, USCIS has extended the RFE response time for certain queries to 180 days !
Meanwhile, the consulate will hold the Visa number for 180 days ( + time spent on interview intiation) with a suspense tone. If the Fiscal Year is over by the time, the visa number is a waste. ( granted to EB, the following year)

---

Kanmani, Won't the consulate return the visa number in the same month of the interview if visa is not granted? Or is EB and FB consular processing done differently?

I understand any kind of wastage is not good.
If we apply the same analogy to EB2-I demand numbers, what would be the likely drop outs from ' documentarily qualified' people. I am sure there would be quite a few from 2007 and from 2008. How does USISC know this. For eg. if a person has a pending i-485 in 2007 and a demand number in EB2-I but gone back . Is it mandatory to send drop out letters?. or does IBIS sort out this automatically or triggered only when PD is current?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vizcard

First of all 18K wastage is a very significant number - considering the backlog in FB immigration. The wait time is due to this kind of wastage. A simple solution is to not request a visa number until an applicant is "documentarily qualified" like in EB immigration.

Secondly, "Loss of interest" means the GC for that applicant is a "nice to have" rather than a "must have". That's also part of the reason why there is a lot more noise from EB immigration where in most cases a GC is a "must have".

PS: parents are not part of any quota for GC. As for brothers/sisters, I personally have no problem with them being the lowest priority considering that the categories above them are related to spouses & children.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gc_soon

Kanmani, Won't the consulate return the visa number in the same month of the interview if visa is not granted? Or is EB and FB consular processing done differently?

---

By law, they should return the unused visa number the following month, but in practice, it is up to the discretion of the consulates whether to surrender and reapply OR to hold the number and wait for the decision time. Some follow the rule, some may not. More over, consulates cannot use the previous years' visa number as granted.

Spec, I agree with you , CP is a big problem for Chinese, as common people, they have even more responsibilities other than ROW like to get clearance from their government to leave the country . This was shared by my neighbour, while on a discussion about American citizenship, she told that , she must surrender all her property to the government to become other country's citizen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bvsamrat

I understand any kind of wastage is not good.
If we apply the same analogy to EB2-I demand numbers, what would be the likely drop outs from ' documentarily qualified' people. I am sure there would be quite a few from 2007 and from 2008. How does USISC know this. For eg. if a person has a pending i-485 in 2007 and a demand number in EB2-I but gone back . Is it mandatory to send drop out letters?. or does IBIS sort out this automatically or triggered only when PD is current?

---

There is only one trigger that tells the USCIS that the case is "lost" and that is a revoked I140 or I485. if the sponsoring company does not do that, then I don't think there's any way for USCIS to know this... even when the person is current (unless there's some form of RFE).

In the past, we had used a term called "demand destruction" to capture some of those lost cases & cases where ppl got laid off. There might still be some of that but I don't remember the factor Q and Spec used to estimate demand or if it is still valid.

Small nugget - Fragomen released a bulletin article on mar 1 stating the potential impacts of the sequester which may impact porting.
----
Executive Summary
DHS, DOL and the State Department have not yet released specific plans for dealing with across-the-board budget cuts, but immigration processing could be delayed if a budget compromise is not reached in Congress.

As has been widely reported in the media, across-the-board funding cuts are set to take effect today at U.S. government agencies unless Congress can reach a compromise on the federal budget. The Departments of Homeland Security, State and Labor are all subject to cuts, but have not yet specified how their immigration processing operations would be affected. If funding reductions take place, employers and foreign nationals could see delays in adjudications, border inspections and visa issuance.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is primarily funded by filing fees and may see the fewest effects if sequester takes place, though it is subject to budget cuts to some degree. Customs and Border Protection is expected to be among the hardest hit among DHS operations. Immigration and Customs Enforcement this week released some low-risk foreign nationals from detention facilities, citing looming budget cuts.

At the State Department, officials have already warned that consular services like visa processing might be delayed. Labor Department functions – including PERM, labor condition application (LCA) and prevailing wage operations – are not funded by fees and could also face delays due to cuts.
Even if sequester is avoided, there remains the threat of a government shutdown later in March when a stopgap government funding measure expires.

What This Means for Employers
The budget sequester comes as employers are preparing for the FY 2014 H-1B cap filing season, which begins April 1. Though by no means certain, cap-related processing could see the most immediate impact if cuts take place -- in particular, the processing of LCAs at DOL. The LCA is an essential component of every H-1B case and must be obtained before a petition is filed with USCIS. Employers should continue to work with their Fragomen professionals to file LCAs as soon as possible, but should be prepared for possible delays if the budget impasse is not resolved.

Fragomen is closely monitoring the agencies and will provide updates as developments occur.
-------

Some of the points that I read from various websites w.r.t CP ( There is no Government document available)

After NVC fees is paid, a parcel (documents) will be sent to the applicant. The applicant can delay the consular interview for one year from the day of receipt of the parcel , provided he submits valid reason for the delay.

On the day of the interview the applicant is given a clear verdict, pass or fail.

If fail, he is eligible for re-interview without new application, fees etc within one year.

If pass, he is stamped with immigrant visa which is valid for only 6 months, within that he must enter the US to get his physical GC. Otherwise the immigrant visa is not valid meaning the visa number is wasted.

I am really confused with the time limit ( 1 year interview time 1 year appeal time), though we all know NVC sends fee notices well ahead. As S said, we will ever know how they operate.

I have heard from friends that there have been instances when people have gone back to India and still received GCs in mail at a friends' address! So once 485 has been filed USCIS mostly blindly processes it as long as it is a normal case (as in all documents in order, no felony records and clear FBI namecheck and no revokations).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vizcard

There is only one trigger that tells the USCIS that the case is "lost" and that is a revoked I140 or I485. if the sponsoring company does not do that, then I don't think there's any way for USCIS to know this... even when the person is current (unless there's some form of RFE).

In the past, we had used a term called "demand destruction" to capture some of those lost cases & cases where ppl got laid off. There might still be some of that but I don't remember the factor Q and Spec used to estimate demand or if it is still valid.

---

Not to exhibit schadenfreude, but this could have a pretty significant impact on spillover to EB2IC not just through porting, but also through EB2ROW fall across.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vizcard

Small nugget - Fragomen released a bulletin article on mar 1 stating the potential impacts of the sequester which may impact porting.
----
At the State Department, officials have already warned that consular services like visa processing might be delayed. Labor Department functions – including PERM, labor condition application (LCA) and prevailing wage operations – are not funded by fees and could also face delays due to cuts.
Even if sequester is avoided, there remains the threat of a government shutdown later in March when a stopgap government funding measure expires.

-------

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanmani

Some of the points that I read from various websites w.r.t CP ( There is no Government document available)

After NVC fees is paid, a parcel (documents) will be sent to the applicant. The applicant can delay the consular interview for one year from the day of receipt of the parcel , provided he submits valid reason for the delay.

On the day of the interview the applicant is given a clear verdict, pass or fail.

If fail, he is eligible for re-interview without new application, fees etc within one year.

If pass, he is stamped with immigrant visa which is valid for only 6 months, within that he must enter the US to get his physical GC. Otherwise the immigrant visa is not valid meaning the visa number is wasted.

I am really confused with the time limit ( 1 year interview time 1 year appeal time), though we all know NVC sends fee notices well ahead. As S said, we will ever know how they operate.

---

Exactly thats what I was talking about - ACCOUNTABILITY & TRANSPARENCY thats what missing - They can treat EB immigrants like whatever they want, but they should be accountable and transparent to their fellow countrymen (FBs are filed by Citizens and PRs). If you are wasting 18k in a single year and you don't even reach out to your fellow countrymen on what happened then you got a PROBLEM man!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geeaarpee

Exactly thats what I was talking about - ACCOUNTABILITY & TRANSPARENCY thats what missing - They can treat EB immigrants like whatever they want, but they should be accountable and transparent to their fellow countrymen (FBs are filed by Citizens and PRs). If you are wasting 18k in a single year and you don't even reach out to your fellow countrymen on what happened then you got a PROBLEM man!

---

We're getting off track on this thread. If this discussion gathers momentum, i'll move it to its own thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pedro Gonzales

We're getting off track on this thread. If this discussion gathers momentum, i'll move it to its own thread.

---

Thank you. :D

Spec,

I ran some filters on trackitt to find out I485-ROW filings for Oct-Feb period for FY11,12,and 13 and this is what I found

FY 2011 - 222 caes
FY 2012 - 212 cases and
FY 2013 - 253 cases

Given EB2-ROW was retrogressed for last 3 months of FY2012..I still don’t see 'significant' increase in EB2-ROW filings (not at least from this data). Do you think that EB2-ROW demand is tapering off and might yield some spillover?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suninphx

Spec,

I ran some filters on trackitt to find out I485-ROW filings for Oct-Feb period for FY11,12,and 13 and this is what I found

FY 2011 - 222 caes
FY 2012 - 212 cases and
FY 2013 - 253 cases

Given EB2-ROW was retrogressed for last 3 months of FY2012..I still don’t see 'significant' increase in EB2-ROW filings (not at least from this data). Do you think that EB2-ROW demand is tapering off and might yield some spillover?

---

suninphx,

That's a slightly unfair comparison IMO.

There hasn't been enough time in FY2013 for all the cases to be added to Trackitt. People are notoriously slow in doing so.

I think we are using slightly different filters (I'm including NIW for instance), but that's not an issue.

My equivalent figures to your post would be:

FY2011 -- 265
FY2012 -- 261
FY2013 -- 289

However, if they were shown as cases added to Trackitt by Mar 15 in the relevant year they become:

FY2011 -- 167
FY2012 -- 178
FY2013 -- 289

Of those 289 in FY2013, 143 have a USCIS receipt date of November 2012.

Between June to December 2012 USCIS Receipt Dates, there have been 422 Trackitt cases added for EB2-ROW. Only 2 of those were approved in FY2012. A third of those remain pending.

Suninphx I am surprised why you dont think that 212 ->> 253 is a significant increase. That's a 20% increase which can easily consume any remaining EB2ROW quota.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

Suninphx I am surprised why you dont think that 212 ->> 253 is a significant increase. That's a 20% increase which can easily consume any remaining EB2ROW quota.

---

qesehmk, not really...when you take into consideration 3 months retrogession.

My point is -ROW seems to be running at ~50- cases /month (for previous years) ... on trackitt....and they are below that average currently.. (~253 against ~400 expected)...Spectator has fair point there about people being slow in adding cases ..so we will see if we reach to that average rate in coming months... as things stand now...they are running below avarage