EB2 Predictions (Rather Calculations) - 2012

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vishnu

It won't move but probably brought back to Aug 2007 - the idea being that there will be sufficient porting numbers to absorb the 2800 visas.

---

Vishnu,

I think it should move a little beyond aug 2007. Until Aug 2007 for EB2-I, there are roughly 1800 pending applications including the 2006 cases. I am ignoring cases prior to 2006 since the numbers are less and they might have some issue to be waiting in the inventory. Now, as for porting, if USCIS decides to gift the 2800 in oct 2012 itself, then porting should not be a concern. The inventory already has them and no more numbers will be added since Eb2-I is now unavailable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veni001

There are several unknowns but, considering the fact that both EB1 and EB2ROW may have a COD before end of FY2012 and last weeks EB-485 inventory data, i am not expecting EB2I move any further than 15AUG2007 before Q3 of FY 2013.

On the other hand EB2C could move to mid 2008 by Q2 of FY2013.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natvyas

Veni

Dont you think EB2I should move because of the 2800 that would be available starting Oct 12?

Regards
Nat

---

I agree there are unknowns but here are my thoughts
- IF Eb1 and EB2ROW finish FY12 without CODs and that's a big IF right now then we will see movement at the end of Q1 FY13 to probably Oct 1, 2007 and Jan 1, 2007 by Q2 FY13. This is also assuming that CO applies QSP which he may choose not to do. Big movements will happen only in the summer (like Venu said).
- I dont think that the EAD renewal issue will have any impact in COD movement. The reason being that for the 2008 folks will need to reapply in the Oct-Nov timeframe and the 2009 folks would need to reapply by Nov- Dec timeframe. No movement will happen before that for sure.

I think in the end, I believe we'll see the same pattern as before the major movements in 2011 - small movements in Q1 and large movements in Q4.

How come EB2-IC becomes 'U' and still the EB3-IC remains available with the specified PD?

In other words, what is the logic behind applying the extra rollover inventory from ROW to EB3-IC instead of EB2-IC?

Veni

I think vedu said it very well below. However we all know that a lot of these things are at the discretion of DOS and/or USCIS. So what I said about EB2C is an educated opinion at the best. I can't dare predict that it will become current.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veni001

Q,
Even EB2C got 8,337 pending applications with PD before 01MAY2010, which is almost equal to three years regular allocation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vedu

From the latest inventory report, I noticed that EB2 ROW is current in spite of having 11,189 case pending. So based on the same logic, USCIS does not need to clear all 39,577 pending EB2 I cases for the dates to start moving again. On the contrary, USCIS will always be required to keep more buffer of EB2I pending cases as compared to EB2 ROW cases in order to ensure no wastage of visas in any given year.

What do you guys think?

---

I think you are spot on. In case of ROW USCIS is looking at "Eligible ROW demand that asks for visas in any given month. So although there will be always be 5-12K pending cases, as long as the number of eligible cases is less than ROWEB2's monthly quota - that makes EB2ROW eligible to be called as Current.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bvsamrat

Since when this 140,000 quota is put in place? Is there any effort or or plan to introdce any bill in the past or future to increase?

I agree. With PERM, one should get automatic GC. This is what happens in other countries. Atleast with more strict UCIS control, misuse can be avoided.

---

As far as I remember 140K has always been there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A_Tech_Softie

How come EB2-IC becomes 'U' and still the EB3-IC remains available with the specified PD?

In other words, what is the logic behind applying the extra rollover inventory from ROW to EB3-IC instead of EB2-IC?

---

As of now DOS doesn't see the possiibility of any further ROW spillover to EB2IC. Which is why EB2IC is U after having well over its limit. As per EB3IC - clearly they are well below their annual consumption rate so they are not U.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A_Tech_Softie

How come EB2-IC becomes 'U' and still the EB3-IC remains available with the specified PD?

In other words, what is the logic behind applying the extra rollover inventory from ROW to EB3-IC instead of EB2-IC?

---

Nothing of the sort is happening. EB2ROW is C and will remain so until then end of the year (hopefully). If at that time, there is SO, it will come to EB2IC. They have made EB2IC "U" because they don't expect any SO and hence cannot keep a COD. Nothing is going from ROW to EB3 at this time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veni001

There are several unknowns but, considering the fact that both EB1 and EB2ROW may have a COD before end of FY2012 and last weeks EB-485 inventory data, i am not expecting EB2I move any further than 15AUG2007 before Q3 of FY 2013.

On the other hand EB2C could move to mid 2008 by Q2 of FY2013.

---

This is very true ... only hope is like Apr 2011 CO might move the dates otherwise its going to be like last 4 years when movement was only in last quarter.

Hi All,

Many of us had hopes HR 3012. With present situation with EB2 I - "U", it is very important that some kind of immigration reform should happen. otherwise Eb2-I will be new EB3.

Having said that, I am crossing my fingers on Senate Bill # S.3185, Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas Introduced a Bill in the Senate Yesterday to Eliminate 55,000 Diversity Visa Replaced by STEM Foreign Workers.

Unlike HR 3012, This bill is introduced in senate first, which is critical house.
Also, Unlike HR 3012, This bill may not have opposition from immigration communities.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s3185/show

Note : some web sites reported bill # 3835 but it appears to be incorrect.

By: U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary’s Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security Subcommittee

Sen. John Cornyn's Website link for the new bill:
http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/public/...8-c5df1c4313a4

Sen. John Cornyn's Website link for the STAR Act:
http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/public/...8-c5df1c4313a4

STAR Act (PDF):
http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/public/...f-535ae95f39ed

In the same vein as imdeng's post I had a question regarding the primary applicant's position. I have an EAD now and will probably continue in the same company as am happily termed "No Flight Risk" with the lowest increments possible.

What does the future hold? Let us say a person like myself wants to change company after 180 days on the AC rule or another person newly greened wants to change company after getting GC . Do we still need to continue in our current designations - a manager to a managerial role in the new company? Or can we aspire to be a Director in the new firm? How does GC being generated for future employment curtail your professional growth plans? Also, how long into the future do you need to continue in your current GC designated role?

Thanks for your answers
B

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billikoot

In the same vein as imdeng's post I had a question regarding the primary applicant's position. I have an EAD now and will probably continue in the same company as am happily termed "No Flight Risk" with the lowest increments possible.

What does the future hold? Let us say a person like myself wants to change company after 180 days on the AC rule or another person newly greened wants to change company after getting GC . Do we still need to continue in our current designations - a manager to a managerial role in the new company? Or can we aspire to be a Director in the new firm? How does GC being generated for future employment curtail your professional growth plans? Also, how long into the future do you need to continue in your current GC designated role?

Thanks for your answers
B

---

billikoot,

If you want to switch employer using AC21 then your job should be same or similar position, once you receive you GC then there is no such requirement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billikoot

In the same vein as imdeng's post I had a question regarding the primary applicant's position. I have an EAD now and will probably continue in the same company as am happily termed "No Flight Risk" with the lowest increments possible.

What does the future hold? Let us say a person like myself wants to change company after 180 days on the AC rule or another person newly greened wants to change company after getting GC . Do we still need to continue in our current designations - a manager to a managerial role in the new company? Or can we aspire to be a Director in the new firm? How does GC being generated for future employment curtail your professional growth plans? Also, how long into the future do you need to continue in your current GC designated role?

Thanks for your answers
B

---

You can changed jobs on AC21 if the type of work is same or similar. Titles don't matter - the work content matters. Think about it- the folks who got EAD in 2007 but are still waiting for their GC 5 yrs later - they would have gotten promotions along the way (hopefully !)

When you get a GC, there are no restrictions on what you can or cannot do.

This is where it does not make sense. FYI EB3 when issued to an applicant suited to less than 5 years experience, when actually granted GC after 10 years is supposed to work in same position with same salary or designation(Likewise EB2 say with wait of 5 years).

Then why any company would take a risk in promoting/altering the job description. I have heard of cases where the employers are told by lawers not to do this (or will be billed with new applications and tons of paper work). This is also true that in small non IT firms, where employers need international talent, but are scared of tedious and legal paper work.

In a high tech and highly democratic country, why nobody is objecting to this. May be this is still appealing to people who do not care or the alternatives are worst than this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veni001

billikoot,

If you want to switch employer using AC21 then your job should be same or similar position, once you receive you GC then there is no such requirement.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bvsamrat

This is where it does not make sense. FYI EB3 when issued to an applicant suited to less than 5 years experience, when actually granted GC after 10 years is supposed to work in same position with same salary or designation(Likewise EB2 say with wait of 5 years).

Then why any company would take a risk in promoting/altering the job description. I have heard of cases where the employers are told by lawers not to do this (or will be billed with new applications and tons of paper work). This is also true that in small non IT firms, where employers need international talent, but are scared of tedious and legal paper work.

In a high tech and highly democratic country, why nobody is objecting to this. May be this is still appealing to people who do not care or the alternatives are worst than this.

---

bvsamrat,

We like it or not it part of the game!

That is exactly the point and it is apparent that some type of immigration rule changes are much needed.
May be HR3012 would do to some extent. I also think that EB catagory needs to be revamped for so called skilled workers in USA - to be more fair and equal. May be the big and cash rich IT companies will do some thing in this regards as they would be main affected ones and will eventually loose if they fail to attract the best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veni001

bvsamrat,

We like it or not it part of the game!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bvsamrat

This is where it does not make sense. FYI EB3 when issued to an applicant suited to less than 5 years experience, when actually granted GC after 10 years is supposed to work in same position with same salary or designation(Likewise EB2 say with wait of 5 years).

Then why any company would take a risk in promoting/altering the job description. I have heard of cases where the employers are told by lawers not to do this (or will be billed with new applications and tons of paper work). This is also true that in small non IT firms, where employers need international talent, but are scared of tedious and legal paper work.

In a high tech and highly democratic country, why nobody is objecting to this. May be this is still appealing to people who do not care or the alternatives are worst than this.

---

There is no requirement to be at the same position or salary. The role (not to be confused with job title) has to be similar. So you cannot go from R&D to Marketing but you can probably go from R&D to Product Development. You can also go from Manager - R&D to Director - R&D. The only red flags occur when you go to a seemingly different role and when your salaries are lower than PERM.

This is a classic situation where rumors and misconceptions result in bad behavior from all parties - lawyers, employers and employees.

Additionally - you can grow in the same role without the need of AC21. So analyst - manager -director - VP .... is just fine .... as long the basic role remains same but simply evolves over time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vizcard

There is no requirement to be at the same position or salary. The role (not to be confused with job title) has to be similar. So you cannot go from R&D to Marketing but you can probably go from R&D to Product Development. You can also go from Manager - R&D to Director - R&D. The only red flags occur when you go to a seemingly different role and when your salaries are lower than PERM.

This is a classic situation where rumors and misconceptions result in bad behavior from all parties - lawyers, employers and employees.

---

Hi All,

Do you guys know,

1) How many visas (DV Lottery GC) were given in FY2011.
2) Are they utilizing to their full capacity (55k Visa)
3) If not, is there a Spill Over rule..

Thanks
Tatikonda

S.3185 was referred to the committee where all the awesome Senators are "Ranking" members. This bill has been filed in 110th, 111th, and now in 112th Congress. I wouldn't read too much into it unless the committee approves the bill and sends it for a vote.

The primary difference being that this bill in 112th Congress was filed as a Senate bill instead of a House bill (H.R. *) filed before.

Entire immigration has as much or more political objectives as economic ones.

So DV is really a tool to ensure political diversity .... which then becomes a useful tool to create Karzai's who can go back and rule their countries at the behest of their US masters.

My 2 political cents on this one.

p.s. - No wonder India and China and all the wester European countries are excluded from it. Just check the list who is eligible and you can see what I am saying. But I am afraid .... I am digressing from the EB immigration discussion --- so this will be my last post on this topic on this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sportsfan33

I highly doubt if there is a single visa spilled over from DV. There are 55K GCs given out in this program and unless worldwide, less number of people are applying, there won't be a spillover. The chances of < 55K people applying are ZERO because conditions are bad almost everywhere on this planet. It is sometimes shocking how humanity has achieved so little despite all this amazing technology, but it's a subject of a debate on different day.

I came to know 2 different families who immigrated to the US during the past 12 months through DV - this is in addition to 1 of my friends from my grad school who won the green card through DV lottery as well. The 2 families we came to know became close friends of ours. A few observations there: Both the families are from the former Eastern bloc countries, and the wives have very poor command on English. Their husbands are stuck on low paying jobs, and their kids (1 and 2 respectively) are on the food stamps and get their insurance on the medicare. They also get almost 30% off their rent in prime locations because of the "affordable housing" program run by our government in red ink.

If you really think about this, let's understand the enormous ridicule in this system: The US lets in 55K people each year who will be dependent on the social safety net from day 1 and contribute almost no federal taxes (no fault of theirs...those families are highly educated, but unfortunately, solid command on Russian and other such languages, knowledge of history and arts are not in demand when competing against locals here), while more than 100K+ highly paid immigrants are stuck in the system for over a decade.

You know what? These people simply log on the Internet, and apply blindly in the DV program, and suddenly, one fine day, someone gets lucky, gets called for an interview, and they just come here. If they struggle, there are all kinds of programs to help them out. And H1B folks will pay the tab gladly.

Although we made friends with the said families, I could not help but be disturbed and angry at this deep institutional insanity. I don't question the fairness, because ultimately, all of us are immigrants in this host country. But I question the policy from the perspective of the host country - would they pick up the tab of so many people coming here on DV (and possibly F4 - I don't think citizen brothers and sisters really would pay for their immigrating siblings) while there are 20%+ jobless and the government in trillions in the red?

Maybe I am being sanctimonious and inflating the worth of H1Bs in this country - after all, we are accused of job displacement and wage suppressant among others. But I have yet to see an H1B worker (even after getting GC, citizenship) ever relying on social safety nets during their productive working life.

I hope sanity prevails and at least temporarily, DV is suspended and at least some visas are diverted to EB categories.

I think S.3185 is a great bill, and we should really push hard for it. I am sure entire EB community can support this bill without fighting bitterly like the last time. I also do not think we are being unfair to any other potential immigrant, because unlike the other categories, the DV category has NO APPLICANT with a priority date. And at least some of them have an option of immigrating in FB.

---

Allowing Employment Authorization for H-4 Dependent Spouses

By Felicia Escobar, Senior Policy Director for Immigration

Thank you for signing the petition suggesting that the Obama Administration extend the availability of employment authorization to H-4 dependent spouses of principal H-1B nonimmigrants.

The H-1B nonimmigrant classification allows a qualified alien to seek admission to the United States on a temporary basis to work in his or her field of expertise. We appreciate the important economic contributions H-1B nonimmigrant workers make to the United States and support using the H-1B visa program as a way to fill the need for skilled workers when American employees are unable to meet the needs of employers. The Obama Administration has also recognized that focusing solely on the H-1B program would not be an effective long-term strategy to address worker shortages in critical growth industries. That's why we are developing robust strategies for improving our Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education pipeline and fostering innovation.

On January 31, 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a series of future administrative reforms -- in recognition of the one year anniversary of the White House Startup Initiative -- including reform aimed at addressing the particular issue you raised in your petition. Specifically, DHS is preparing a proposed rule that would allow employment authorization for H-4 dependent spouses of the subset of H-1B visa holders who are being sponsored by their employers for permanent residence and who have been authorized by Congress to remain in the United States until their petitions to adjust status have been adjudicated. This proposed change is an important step toward realizing the 21st Century immigration system envisioned by the President, and it reflects the Administration's continuing commitment to attracting and retaining talented and hardworking immigrants.

What exactly this excerpt of the statement means "who have been authorized by Congress to remain in the United States until their petitions to adjust status have been adjudicated"

Is it the person should have approved I-140 or applied for 485?

Its the latter srini.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ssrini

What exactly this excerpt of the statement means "who have been authorized by Congress to remain in the United States until their petitions to adjust status have been adjudicated"

Is it the person should have approved I-140 or applied for 485?

---

Q, in that case spouse gets an EAD card and can work. Right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

Its the latter srini.

---

You apply for EAD for your dependents with 485 anyway so what benefit does this idea bring?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by usernameisnotvalid

Q, in that case spouse gets an EAD card and can work. Right?

---

That already exists. So if you file 485 - the spouse gets an EAD along with you.

I guess the change DHS is working on right now - needs to be clarified further. Are they talking about EAD for spouse even when 485 is not filed but 140 is cleared? You may want to ask that person from DHS who responded to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by usernameisnotvalid

Q, in that case spouse gets an EAD card and can work. Right?

---