Bills, Rules & Politics

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gs1968

This is great news although the article content seems less certain than the headline

---

It certainly seems more understated than headline suggests. But if we read between the lines, what Durbin is saying is that unlike GOP senate majority leader McConnell who killed GOP's own S386, Durbin knows that he doesn't have to worry if the bill ever see the light of day on senate agenda.

Durbin will work in the background to get 10 republicans to break any filibuster and while they all don't have to vote for the bill, there could be 10 senators who might detest filibusters. After that all Durbin needs is 1 GOP vote assuming Joe Manchin could very well vote down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

It certainly seems more understated than headline suggests. But if we read between the lines, what Durbin is saying is that unlike GOP senate majority leader McConnell who killed GOP's own S386, Durbin knows that he doesn't have to worry if the bill ever see the light of day on senate agenda.

Durbin will work in the background to get 10 republicans to break any filibuster and while they all don't have to vote for the bill, there could be 10 senators who might detest filibusters. After that all Durbin needs is 1 GOP vote assuming Joe Manchin could very well vote down.

---

Let's see how much ransom those 10 demand (for border security or whatever other measures).

On other hand, i feel if republicans filibuster this DACA bill, democrats can use that as an excuse to dilute filibuster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alpha0

Let's see how much ransom those 10 demand (for border security or whatever other measures).

On other hand, i feel if republicans filibuster this DACA bill, democrats can use that as an excuse to dilute filibuster.

---

Filibuster is useless anyway and I do think it should be completely scrapped. I am not as optimistic that it will be scrapped over DREAM act.

I hear that Grace Meng's amendement for stopping the spillover for FY 2021 and FY 2022 had passed the committee. I cross checked the amendment and verified that it makes spillover as zero. For people not familiar with INA (d)(2)(C) specifies the spilloever from FB to EB.

Quote:

---

(e) For fiscal year 2021 and 2022, the number computed under subsection (c)(3)(C) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), and the number computed under subsection (d)(2)(C) of such section, are deemed to equal zero.

---

She also another amendment which will provide visa's for people affected by DT's presedential proclamations. I could not confirm for sure whether it had passed the committee, but the text of the amendement is there. If someone cross checks if it had passed, please share.

Here's the text to the Appropriations Bill for FY 2021.

With democrats controling the house, the Committee version should fly through congress. Don't know what will happen in the Senate.

Yea..Meng's amendment: https://appropriations.house.gov/sit...ent%20%231.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by idliman

I hear that Grace Meng's amendement for stopping the spillover for FY 2021 and FY 2022 had passed the committee. I cross checked the amendment and verified that it makes spillover as zero. For people not familiar with INA (d)(2)(C) specifies the spilloever from FB to EB.



She also another amendment which will provide visa's for people affected by DT's presedential proclamations. I could not confirm for sure whether it had passed the committee, but the text of the amendement is there. If someone cross checks if it had passed, please share.

Here's the text to the Appropriations Bill for FY 2021.

With democrats controling the house, the Committee version should fly through congress. Don't know what will happen in the Senate.

---

If you ask me, no immigration related amendments will make it through. They will all be cleaned out. I have observed these type of backdoor fixes being tried many times before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by idliman

I hear that Grace Meng's amendement for stopping the spillover for FY 2021 and FY 2022 had passed the committee. I cross checked the amendment and verified that it makes spillover as zero. For people not familiar with INA (d)(2)(C) specifies the spilloever from FB to EB.



She also another amendment which will provide visa's for people affected by DT's presedential proclamations. I could not confirm for sure whether it had passed the committee, but the text of the amendement is there. If someone cross checks if it had passed, please share.

Here's the text to the Appropriations Bill for FY 2021.

With democrats controling the house, the Committee version should fly through congress. Don't know what will happen in the Senate.

---

Why do I get a Deja'Vu moment here? Wait didn't the dems try the same thing last year too through appropriations (Can someone confirm). This Meng amendment feels pretty substantial for an appropriations bill. As such appropriations is not expected to pass until Dec 2021 atleast with piece meal bills happening to keep the funding going until then. Interesting it says that re-capture unused FB to EB SO numbers in 2021 fiscal also and give it back to the FB. Its essentially a re-capture bill also for FB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenzone

Why do I get a Deja'Vu moment here? Wait didn't the dems try the same thing last year too through appropriations (Can someone confirm). This Meng amendment feels pretty substantial for an appropriations bill. As such appropriations is not expected to pass until Dec 2021 atleast with piece meal bills happening to keep the funding going until then. Interesting it says that re-capture unused FB to EB SO numbers in 2021 fiscal also and give it back to the FB. Its essentially a re-capture bill also for FB.

---

What happens to. FADs if no spillover is considered? I would assume it will retrogress tremendously.

Doesn't Appropriations bill need simple majority to pass? ..With thin majority of Ds in Senate , passing appropriations before end of FY21still possible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gthbvf

Doesn't Appropriations bill need simple majority to pass? ..With thin majority of Ds in Senate , passing appropriations before end of FY21still possible?

---

That's my point. If the govt. doesn't shut down (highly unlikely in my opinion) with a split senate, the bill is expected to pass in Dec 2021. But the language says FY 2021 wasted visas should be re-captured back. If that's the case ~ 150K wasted FB SO from this fiscal should also flow back to EB next year. Not sure of the real impact.

Without getting technical on the language pre-maturely, these type of amendments have very slim chance as such to begin with. If these are minor annoyance USCIS wastage due to poor processing efficiency is the real concern in my opinion. Feels like posturing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gthbvf

Doesn't Appropriations bill need simple majority to pass? ..With thin majority of Ds in Senate , passing appropriations before end of FY21still possible?

---

That's why immigration provisions almost always get stripped out as they are subjected to filibuster. Its a tacit agreement that worked even during DT's years and prior.

You missing point ..Ideally Appropriations/Omnibus bill has to pass in FY21 (before Sept2021) .. With simple majority vote needed it's doable in Senate . And since D control Senate so hard to strip amendment sourced from house D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gthbvf

You missing point ..Ideally Appropriations/Omnibus bill has to pass in FY21 (before Sept2021) .. With simple majority vote needed it's doable in Senate . And since D control Senate so hard to strip amendment sourced from house D.

---

They would need Manchin and Sinema's support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gthbvf

You missing point ..Ideally Appropriations/Omnibus bill has to pass in FY21 (before Sept2021) .. With simple majority vote needed it's doable in Senate . And since D control Senate so hard to strip amendment sourced from house D.

---

No chance as such. Last year Durbin tried it. Also, this year's appropriations bill will be delayed. Have seen this song and dance many times.

Some early analysis for your reference (please take it with a grain of salt) - https://www.am22tech.com/usa/news/bl...-eb-spillover/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenzone

That's my point. If the govt. doesn't shut down (highly unlikely in my opinion) with a split senate, the bill is expected to pass in Dec 2021. But the language says FY 2021 wasted visas should be re-captured back. If that's the case ~ 150K wasted FB SO from this fiscal should also flow back to EB next year. Not sure of the real impact.

Without getting technical on the language pre-maturely, these type of amendments have very slim chance as such to begin with. If these are minor annoyance USCIS wastage due to poor processing efficiency is the real concern in my opinion. Feels like posturing.

---

I believe devil is in the details. It all boils down to what is considered as the established worldwide level for EB for year 2020 (156K vs 140K) and 2021 (262K vs 140K) in the section B of the amendment. Per my understanding it should be 156K/262K as these limits were already established at the start of the fiscal year. If thats the case, then definitely the calculation for 2022 stands at 140K + (262K - Used Visas in 2021)

Section E makes spillover for 2021 and 2022 as zero but its not clear how this effects the numbers for 2021. Does this text make section B as 140K? If no what is the point of adding year 2021 in the this section

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GCkaLADDU

I believe devil is in the details. It all boils down to what is considered as the established worldwide level for EB for year 2020 (156K vs 140K) and 2021 (262K vs 140K) in the section B of the amendment. Per my understanding it should be 156K/262K as these limits were already established at the start of the fiscal year. If thats the case, then definitely the calculation for 2022 stands at 140K + (262K - Used Visas in 2021)

Section E makes spillover for 2021 and 2022 as zero but its not clear how this effects the numbers for 2021. Does this text make section B as 140K? If no what is the point of adding year 2021 in the this section

---

Here is the logical conflict. This year USCIS must have given more than 140K visas in EB (even if they waste a lot of visas), so how can allotted numbers be retroactively redacted. Makes no sense because more than the 140K statutory limit was exceeded only because of the spillover at the beginning on 2021 fiscal flowing into the EB from FB per INA (d)(2)(C). If the SO was retroactively reset to zero then USCIS would have breached the INA numerical limit for FY 2021.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenzone

Here is the logical conflict. This year USCIS must have given more than 140K visas in EB (even if they waste a lot of visas), so how can allotted numbers be retroactively redacted. Makes no sense because more than the 140K statutory limit was exceeded only because of the spillover at the beginning on 2021 fiscal flowing into the EB from FB per INA (d)(2)(C). If the SO was retroactively reset to zero then USCIS would have breached the INA numerical limit for FY 2021.

---

The same thing was tried last year as well. The DHS was a continuing resolution funding. Fully expect the same this year as well. Doubt if this will be enacted through a omnibus bill with 50-50 and VP breaking the tie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by android09

The same thing was tried last year as well. The DHS was a continuing resolution funding. Fully expect the same this year as well. Doubt if this will be enacted through a omnibus bill with 50-50 and VP breaking the tie.

---

Agree that. Regular continuing appropriations will need filibuster proof majority if I'm not mistaken here. Also, as noted above Sinema and Manchin will be key players as well regardless.

Does anyone know if any of the Republicans on the committee voted for this amendment too?

I quickly scanned the meng amendment and this is how it comes across to me. It has 2 key provisions.
1) Recapture all unused visas from 2020 and 2021 and give them back to EB and FB both.
2) Make USCIS reserve visas for some of the applicants and process them in 2022 with 2020+2021 quota!!

I think #2 makes the whole thing unnecessarily complicated. If #1 is accomplished then #2 becomes moot.

Now as per #1 - the devil in the details is that meng is proposing equitable distribution between EB and FB by in proportion of their base size.
Step 1 - Recapture visas = Visas available for EB+FB for 2020+2021 - Visas used for EB+FB for 2020+2021.
Step 2 - Distribute fairly across EB and FB in proportion.

So do the math. My back of the hand calculation tells me there could be approx 400K visas in total and basically EB will get 150K and FB will get 250K for 2022 (in proportion of their size which is approximately in that range).

So if this bill passes then we are talking about 290K visas for EB for USCIS fiscal 2022.

So the first order of business is for the people with best understanding of legal jargon to pour over Meng's pdf and confirm what I am saying.
And then the second order of business is to write to your congressman asking him to support meng.

We can also try to influence Meng to remove the unnecessary part of her amendment or modify it to make it less complicated (imagine the complications for USCIS / DOS trying to implement that 2nd part).

Overall I give thumbs up to this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rsnake

Does anyone know if any of the Republicans on the committee voted for this amendment too?

---

Zip. It was 37-24 along party lines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

I quickly scanned the meng amendment and this is how it comes across to me. It has 2 key provisions.
1) Recapture all unused visas from 2020 and 2021 and give them back to EB and FB both.
2) Make USCIS reserve visas for some of the applicants and process them in 2022 with 2020+2021 quota!!

I think #2 makes the whole thing unnecessarily complicated. If #1 is accomplished then #2 becomes moot.

Now as per #1 - the devil in the details is that meng is proposing equitable distribution between EB and FB by in proportion of their base size.
Step 1 - Recapture visas = Visas available for EB+FB for 2020+2021 - Visas used for EB+FB for 2020+2021.
Step 2 - Distribute fairly across EB and FB in proportion.

So do the math. My back of the hand calculation tells me there could be approx 400K visas in total and basically EB will get 150K and FB will get 250K for 2022 (in proportion of their size which is approximately in that range).

So if this bill passes then we are talking about 290K visas for EB for USCIS fiscal 2022.

So the first order of business is for the people with best understanding of legal jargon to pour over Meng's pdf and confirm what I am saying.
And then the second order of business is to write to your congressman asking him to support meng.

We can also try to influence Meng to remove the unnecessary part of her amendment or modify it to make it less complicated (imagine the complications for USCIS / DOS trying to implement that 2nd part).

Overall I give thumbs up to this.

---

Interesting take. Another point is that these appropriation bills are subjected to filibuster in Senate as they cover discretionary spending. I already see folks like T.Cotton being vocal with their opposition. It feels like posturing to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

I quickly scanned the meng amendment and this is how it comes across to me. It has 2 key provisions.
1) Recapture all unused visas from 2020 and 2021 and give them back to EB and FB both.
2) Make USCIS reserve visas for some of the applicants and process them in 2022 with 2020+2021 quota!!

I think #2 makes the whole thing unnecessarily complicated. If #1 is accomplished then #2 becomes moot.

Now as per #1 - the devil in the details is that meng is proposing equitable distribution between EB and FB by in proportion of their base size.
Step 1 - Recapture visas = Visas available for EB+FB for 2020+2021 - Visas used for EB+FB for 2020+2021.
Step 2 - Distribute fairly across EB and FB in proportion.

So do the math. My back of the hand calculation tells me there could be approx 400K visas in total and basically EB will get 150K and FB will get 250K for 2022 (in proportion of their size which is approximately in that range).

So if this bill passes then we are talking about 290K visas for EB for USCIS fiscal 2022.

So the first order of business is for the people with best understanding of legal jargon to pour over Meng's pdf and confirm what I am saying.
And then the second order of business is to write to your congressman asking him to support meng.

We can also try to influence Meng to remove the unnecessary part of her amendment or modify it to make it less complicated (imagine the complications for USCIS / DOS trying to implement that 2nd part).

Overall I give thumbs up to this.

---

Q - I don't think it will actually allocate unused visas proportionally to EB and FB. I think it will allocate unused FY20+FY21 EB to EB in FY22 and unused FY20+FY21 FB to FB in FY22. FY20 FB-> FY21 EB SO that is unused by the time the bill passes also goes back to FB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abcx13

Q - I don't think it will actually allocate unused visas proportionally to EB and FB. I think it will allocate unused FY20+FY21 EB to EB in FY22 and unused FY20+FY21 FB to FB in FY22. FY20 FB-> FY21 EB SO that is unused by the time the bill passes also goes back to FB.

---

Out of curiosity, how many EB visas were wasted in FY 2020.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenzone

Out of curiosity, how many EB visas were wasted in FY 2020.

---

EB visas issued for 2020 147,153. Visas available ~156,000

https://travel.state.gov/content/dam...bleV-Part3.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AceMan

EB visas issued for 2020 147,153. Visas available ~156,000

https://travel.state.gov/content/dam...bleV-Part3.pdf

---

Okay. So that means we had a SO of ~ 16K for FY 2020 and those 9K unused visas fall back to EB as part of this SO also?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenzone

Okay. So that means we had a SO of ~ 16K for FY 2020 and those 9K unused visas fall back to EB as part of this SO also?

---

I recall an attempt to insert country cap removal in appropriations bill last year or the year before with no success. I suspect USCIS is not going to process more than 140K visas for 2021.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AceMan

I recall an attempt to insert country cap removal in appropriations bill last year or the year before with no success. I suspect USCIS is not going to process more than 140K visas for 2021.

---

The difference is last years congress was composed differently, with the Senate under Republican majority. If the budget bill is passed as a reconciliation bill it can pass the Senate with a simple majority and all democrats will vote along party lines. The small side items added to the bill like Meng's amendment will not register and not deter any of the members to vote against the bill, imo. In fact, I would argue, it would actually be presented and perceived in a positive light since it's giving back the lost visa of the covid years. Remember the covid spillover was an unintended consequence that benefited one type of immigrant visa's (more specifically, one country's immigrant visas) and hurt the other. So the amendment will really be viewed as a fair step to restore parity (to a system that's inherently unfair to begin with but that's a separate matter).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abcx13

Q - I don't think it will actually allocate unused visas proportionally to EB and FB. I think it will allocate unused FY20+FY21 EB to EB in FY22 and unused FY20+FY21 FB to FB in FY22. FY20 FB-> FY21 EB SO that is unused by the time the bill passes also goes back to FB.

---

Thank you abcx. I will check again. Can somebody else put forth their simplified view of what meng amendment actually proposes? The more views we have the better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gammaray

The difference is last years congress was composed differently, with the Senate under Republican majority. If the budget bill is passed as a reconciliation bill it can pass the Senate with a simple majority and all democrats will vote along party lines. The small side items added to the bill like Meng's amendment will not register and not deter any of the members to vote against the bill, imo. In fact, I would argue, it would actually be presented and perceived in a positive light since it's giving back the lost visa of the covid years. Remember the covid spillover was an unintended consequence that benefited one type of immigrant visa's (more specifically, one country's immigrant visas) and hurt the other. So the amendment will really be viewed as a fair step to restore parity (to a system that's inherently unfair to begin with but that's a separate matter).

---

I think you might be mixing up reconciliation vs. new appropriations. This amendment is sitting in the new appropriations bill which will require filibuster if I'm not wrong. Also, its not the question of "small" amendment because the Senate Parliamentarian reviews and strikes down items in the reconciliation bills that don't confirm to Byrd's rule and other limitations on what can be thrown into such omnibus bills. These bills have a very narrow scope. Durbin's amendment last year was struck down by the parliamentarian for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

Thank you abcx. I will check again. Can somebody else put forth their simplified view of what meng amendment actually proposes? The more views we have the better.

---

From what I read, it says the SO from FB to EB for FY 21 and 22 should be set o zero and those shud be given back to FB and retained until they are actually used. Hence, the retroactive part makes this very questionable as FB SO for 2021 will be used by EB this year (although not 100% to account for wastage). So how can you retroactively set the SO to zero.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AceMan

I recall an attempt to insert country cap removal in appropriations bill last year or the year before with no success. I suspect USCIS is not going to process more than 140K visas for 2021.

---

Likely the will process somewhere around 160-180K visas imo. this fiscal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenzone

I think you might be mixing up reconciliation vs. new appropriations. This amendment is sitting in the new appropriations bill which will require filibuster if I?m not wrong. Also, its not ?small? ammendment because the Senate Parlimentarian reviews and strikes down items in the reconciliation bills that don?t confirm to Byrd?s rule and other limitations on what can be thrown into such omnibus bills. These bills have a very narrow scope. Durbin?s ammendment last year was struck down by tge parlimentarian for example.

---

Which is why I said if the appropriations bill is packaged as a reconciliation bill. The appropriations bill by itself will likely not pass, not because of the trivial amendment, but well the republican's never agree to any budget numbers of Dems. So to circumvent that the dems could use a mechanism that requires simple majority. Byrd's rule is quite open to interpretation and many latently related items in the past have made it through the omnibus bills. A case could be made here since the amendment is specifically related to covid issues. Durbin's amendment didn't make it through, imo, is because, one, the senate republicans were reviewing it, and two, because it was a separate disjointed issue about gc backlogs and not directly related to any covid hardships.

In any case, as with most things in the immigrant world, it's speculation at this point. I guess we'll know soon enough what comes out of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gammaray

Which is why I said if the appropriations bill is packaged as a reconciliation bill. The appropriations bill by itself will likely not pass, not because of the trivial amendment, but well the republican's never agree to any budget numbers of Dems. So to circumvent that the dems could use a mechanism that requires simple majority. Byrd's rule is quite open to interpretation and many latently related items in the past have made it through the omnibus bills. A case could be made here since the amendment is specifically related to covid issues. Durbin's amendment didn't make it through, imo, is because, one, the senate republicans were reviewing it, and two, because it was a separate disjointed issue about gc backlogs and not directly related to any covid hardships.

In any case, as with most things in the immigrant world, it's speculation at this point. I guess we'll know soon enough what comes out of it.

---

You can't package discretionary items in the budget reconciliation bill and Durbin's amendment was not removed the GOP instead by the Parliamentarian. In the past those things got struck down except a precedence in 2005 when a re-capture made it to the bill but ultimately didn't make it post passing when concessions were made before implementation. Regardless, this will not be signed into law atleast until Jan next year as such due to timelines and schedules and piecemeal funding bills will be avoiding a shut down post October through the time the omnibus recon bill passes. So the first quarter of next fiscal won't be impacted either, IMO.

Dems are going to save the reconciliation for the massive $3.5T Infrastructure bill and will be very careful not to poison it with anything else as it's Biden's pet project. IMHO the DHS bill will be stripped off the immigration amendments before passage.

Even if all this happens, USCIS already struggled and is struggling to process all the applications for the last 2 years and how can they be all allocated and processed in 2022? wouldn't that be more burden on them to consume the numbers for FY2022 (140 regular EB + Meng's recapture of 20 & 21). This would mean lots more wastage than efficient recapture. We all know how USCIS will treat this scenario. They will waste it saying processing capacity limits, etc. and waste much more numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlowerPot

Even if all this happens, USCIS already struggled and is struggling to process all the applications for the last 2 years and how can they be all allocated and processed in 2022? wouldn't that be more burden on them to consume the numbers for FY2022 (140 regular EB + Meng's recapture of 20 & 21). This would mean lots more wastage than efficient recapture. We all know how USCIS will treat this scenario. They will waste it saying processing capacity limits, etc. and waste much more numbers.

---

This is just a game for them. Once the filing dates are opened up, people will just file in droves and they will reap the application fees and sit on them for a couple of years. That's why more than anytime it is now imperative that people don't worry about being on EAD/AP and make full use of it to travel freely without worrying about visa stamping and look toward progressing in their careers by using AC21. This is especially true of 2015+ folks as there were massive applications in 2016.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlowerPot

Even if all this happens, USCIS already struggled and is struggling to process all the applications for the last 2 years and how can they be all allocated and processed in 2022? wouldn't that be more burden on them to consume the numbers for FY2022 (140 regular EB + Meng's recapture of 20 & 21). This would mean lots more wastage than efficient recapture. We all know how USCIS will treat this scenario. They will waste it saying processing capacity limits, etc. and waste much more numbers.

---

The amendment doesn't call out for all unused visas to be processed in 2022 itself. It's allows for the carryover to extend beyond 2022 till all the numbers are consumed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abcx13

Q - I don't think it will actually allocate unused visas proportionally to EB and FB. I think it will allocate unused FY20+FY21 EB to EB in FY22 and unused FY20+FY21 FB to FB in FY22. FY20 FB-> FY21 EB SO that is unused by the time the bill passes also goes back to FB.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenzone

From what I read, it says the SO from FB to EB for FY 21 and 22 should be set o zero and those shud be given back to FB and retained until they are actually used. Hence, the retroactive part makes this very questionable as FB SO for 2021 will be used by EB this year (although not 100% to account for wastage). So how can you retroactively set the SO to zero.

---

So here is the language and trying to simplify it: BLUE color mine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. . (a) Notwithstanding any other provision
6 of law, beginning in fiscal year 2022, the worldwide level
7 of family-sponsored immigrants under subsection ( c) of
8 section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
9 U.S.C. 1151) and the worldwide level of employment-
10 based immigrants under subsection (d) of such section
11 shall each be increased by the number computed under
12 subsection (b) of this section with respect to each of such
13 worldwide levels.

For year 2022 for EB and FB each the level of immigration should be increased by b where b is defined as follow:
The increased level for each EB and FB can be called as A


14 (b) For each of the worldwide levels described in sub-
15 section (a) of this section, the number computed under
16 this subsection is the difference (if any) between the sum
g:\V\E\071221 \E071221.026.xml
July 12, 2021 (12:44 p.m.)
(80922615) G:\M\l 7\MENG\MENG_053.XML
2
1 of the worldwide levels established under the applicable
2 subsection of section 201 of the Immigration and Nation-
3 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151) for fiscal years 2020 and 2021
4 and the number of visas that were issued and used as the
5 basis for an application for admission into the United
6 States as an immigrant described in the applicable sub-
7 section during such fiscal years.

b is defined for each FB and EB separately as b = visa level as established for 2020 + 2021 - visas used during 2020 and 2021

8 ( c) The Secretary of State, in consultation with the
9 Secretary of Homeland Security, shall allocate the visas
10 made available as a result of the computation under sub-
11 section (b) on a proportional basis consistent with sub-
12 sections (a) and (b) of section 203 of the Immigration and
13 Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a) and (b)), and in accord-
14 ance with subsection (e)(l) of such section (8 U.S.C.
15 1153(e)(l)).

Then level A should be distributed across sub categories according to the established usual formula.

16 (d) Each visa made available as a result of the com-
17 putation made under subsection (b) of this section shall
18 remain available for use in fiscal year 2022 or any subse-
19 quent fiscal year, until the Secretary of State, in consulta-
20 tion with the Secretary of Homeland Security, determines
21 that such visa has been issued and used as the basis for
22 an application for admission into the United States.

Visas under A should be available during 2022 as well as any future year. i.e. extra visas will spill from FB to FB and EB to EB only for year 2022 visas.

23 (e) For fiscal year 2021 and 2022, the number com-
24 puted under subsection (c)(3)(C) of section 201 of the Im-
25 migration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), and the
g:\V\E\071221\E071221.026.xml
July 12, 2021 (12:44 p.m.)
(80922615) G:\M\l 7\MENG\MENG_053.XML
3
1 number computed under subsection (d)(2)(C) of such sec-
2 tion, are deemed to equal zero.
Spillover for year 2021 and 2022 from FB to EB and vice versa is ZERO. (i.e. any unused EB from 2021 stays in EB)

3 (f) Notwithstanding section 204(a)(l)(I)(ii)(II) of the
4 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
5 1154(a)(l)(I)(ii)(II)), and subject to subsection (i) of this
6 section, an immigrant visa for those selected in accordance
7 with section 203(e)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality
8 Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(e)(2)) in fiscal year 2020 or 2021
9 shall remain available to such alien if, because of restric-
10 tions or limitations on visa processing, visa issuance, trav-
11 el, or other effects associated with the COVID-19 public
12 health emergency-
13 ( 1) the alien was unable to receive a visa inter-
14 view despite submitting an Online Immigrant Visa
15 and Alien Registration Application (Form DS-260)
16 to the Secretary of State; or
17 (2) the alien was unable to seek admission or
18 was denied admission to the United States despite
19 being approved for a visa under section 203(c) of
20 the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
21 1153(c)).
If diversity visas were announced then they should be issued those visas out of respective years. (2020 or 2021). This obviously then affects calculation of A.

22 (g) Not later than 90 days after the date of the enact-
23 ment of this section, the Secretary of State shall-
24 ( 1) provide written notice consistent with sub-
25 section (h) to each alien described in subsection (f)
g:\V\E\071221 \E071221.026.xml (80922615)
July 12, 2021 (12:44 p.m.) G:\M\l 7\MENG\MENG_053.XML
4
1 (and such alien's representative, if applicable) of
2 their continuing eligibility to apply for a visa under
3 section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality
4 Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(c)); and
5 (2) publish on the Department of State website,
6 information and procedures implementing this sec-
7 tion.
8 (h) The notice described in subsection (g) (1) shall in-
9 elude procedures for the alien to inform the Secretary of
10 State of the alien's intent to proceed with or abandon the
11 application, and shall include an advisal that such applica-
12 tion shall be deemed abandoned if the alien fails to notify
13 the Secretary of the alien's intent to proceed within one
14 year after the date on which the notice was issued.
15 (i) An alien described in subsection (f) shall remain
16 eligible to receive a visa described in such subsection until
17 the earliest of the date that-
18 (1) the alien-
19 (A) notifies the Secretary of State of the
20 alien's intent to abandon the application; or
21 (B) fails to respond to the notice described
22 in subsection (g)(l); or
23 (2) the Secretary of State makes a final deter-
24 mination of the alien's ineligibility for such visa
25 under section 203(c)(2), 204(a)(l)(I)(iii), or 212(a)
g:\V\E\071221 \E071221.026.xml (80922615)
July 12, 2021 (12:44 p.m.) G:\M\17\MENG\MENG_053.XML
5
1 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S. C.
2 1153(c)(2), 1154(a)(l)(I)(iii), or 1182(a) ).
3 (j) A determination of whether an alien is the child
4 of a visa recipient described in subsection (f), pursuant
5 section 203(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
6 U.S.C. 1153(d)) shall be made using the age of the child
7 when the applicant was initially selected for a visa in ac-
8 cordance with section 203(e)(2) of such Act.

The DOS secretary should take steps to execute F above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

So here is the language and trying to simplify it: BLUE color mine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. . (a) Notwithstanding any other provision
6 of law, beginning in fiscal year 2022, the worldwide level
7 of family-sponsored immigrants under subsection ( c) of
8 section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
9 U.S.C. 1151) and the worldwide level of employment-
10 based immigrants under subsection (d) of such section
11 shall each be increased by the number computed under
12 subsection (b) of this section with respect to each of such
13 worldwide levels.

For year 2022 for EB and FB each the level of immigration should be increased by b where b is defined as follow:
The increased level for each EB and FB can be called as A


14 (b) For each of the worldwide levels described in sub-
15 section (a) of this section, the number computed under
16 this subsection is the difference (if any) between the sum
g:\V\E\071221 \E071221.026.xml
July 12, 2021 (12:44 p.m.)
(80922615) G:\M\l 7\MENG\MENG_053.XML
2
1 of the worldwide levels established under the applicable
2 subsection of section 201 of the Immigration and Nation-
3 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151) for fiscal years 2020 and 2021
4 and the number of visas that were issued and used as the
5 basis for an application for admission into the United
6 States as an immigrant described in the applicable sub-
7 section during such fiscal years.

b is defined for each FB and EB separately as b = visa level as established for 2020 + 2021 - visas used during 2020 and 2021

8 ( c) The Secretary of State, in consultation with the
9 Secretary of Homeland Security, shall allocate the visas
10 made available as a result of the computation under sub-
11 section (b) on a proportional basis consistent with sub-
12 sections (a) and (b) of section 203 of the Immigration and
13 Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a) and (b)), and in accord-
14 ance with subsection (e)(l) of such section (8 U.S.C.
15 1153(e)(l)).

Then level A should be distributed across sub categories according to the established usual formula.

16 (d) Each visa made available as a result of the com-
17 putation made under subsection (b) of this section shall
18 remain available for use in fiscal year 2022 or any subse-
19 quent fiscal year, until the Secretary of State, in consulta-
20 tion with the Secretary of Homeland Security, determines
21 that such visa has been issued and used as the basis for
22 an application for admission into the United States.

Visas under A should be available during 2022 as well as any future year. i.e. extra visas will spill from FB to FB and EB to EB only for year 2022 visas.

23 (e) For fiscal year 2021 and 2022, the number com-
24 puted under subsection (c)(3)(C) of section 201 of the Im-
25 migration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), and the
g:\V\E\071221\E071221.026.xml
July 12, 2021 (12:44 p.m.)
(80922615) G:\M\l 7\MENG\MENG_053.XML
3
1 number computed under subsection (d)(2)(C) of such sec-
2 tion, are deemed to equal zero.
Spillover for year 2021 and 2022 from FB to EB and vice versa is ZERO. (i.e. any unused EB from 2021 stays in EB)

3 (f) Notwithstanding section 204(a)(l)(I)(ii)(II) of the
4 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
5 1154(a)(l)(I)(ii)(II)), and subject to subsection (i) of this
6 section, an immigrant visa for those selected in accordance
7 with section 203(e)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality
8 Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(e)(2)) in fiscal year 2020 or 2021
9 shall remain available to such alien if, because of restric-
10 tions or limitations on visa processing, visa issuance, trav-
11 el, or other effects associated with the COVID-19 public
12 health emergency-
13 ( 1) the alien was unable to receive a visa inter-
14 view despite submitting an Online Immigrant Visa
15 and Alien Registration Application (Form DS-260)
16 to the Secretary of State; or
17 (2) the alien was unable to seek admission or
18 was denied admission to the United States despite
19 being approved for a visa under section 203(c) of
20 the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
21 1153(c)).
If diversity visas were announced then they should be issued those visas out of respective years. (2020 or 2021). This obviously then affects calculation of A.

22 (g) Not later than 90 days after the date of the enact-
23 ment of this section, the Secretary of State shall-
24 ( 1) provide written notice consistent with sub-
25 section (h) to each alien described in subsection (f)
g:\V\E\071221 \E071221.026.xml (80922615)
July 12, 2021 (12:44 p.m.) G:\M\l 7\MENG\MENG_053.XML
4
1 (and such alien's representative, if applicable) of
2 their continuing eligibility to apply for a visa under
3 section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality
4 Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(c)); and
5 (2) publish on the Department of State website,
6 information and procedures implementing this sec-
7 tion.
8 (h) The notice described in subsection (g) (1) shall in-
9 elude procedures for the alien to inform the Secretary of
10 State of the alien's intent to proceed with or abandon the
11 application, and shall include an advisal that such applica-
12 tion shall be deemed abandoned if the alien fails to notify
13 the Secretary of the alien's intent to proceed within one
14 year after the date on which the notice was issued.
15 (i) An alien described in subsection (f) shall remain
16 eligible to receive a visa described in such subsection until
17 the earliest of the date that-
18 (1) the alien-
19 (A) notifies the Secretary of State of the
20 alien's intent to abandon the application; or
21 (B) fails to respond to the notice described
22 in subsection (g)(l); or
23 (2) the Secretary of State makes a final deter-
24 mination of the alien's ineligibility for such visa
25 under section 203(c)(2), 204(a)(l)(I)(iii), or 212(a)
g:\V\E\071221 \E071221.026.xml (80922615)
July 12, 2021 (12:44 p.m.) G:\M\17\MENG\MENG_053.XML
5
1 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S. C.
2 1153(c)(2), 1154(a)(l)(I)(iii), or 1182(a) ).
3 (j) A determination of whether an alien is the child
4 of a visa recipient described in subsection (f), pursuant
5 section 203(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
6 U.S.C. 1153(d)) shall be made using the age of the child
7 when the applicant was initially selected for a visa in ac-
8 cordance with section 203(e)(2) of such Act.

The DOS secretary should take steps to execute F above.

---

Q - I have immense respect for you and other gurus in this forum. The way all of you provide stats, suggestions, comments selflessly, that's truly worth mentioning. I am a follower of this forum for a long time. Thanks for the detailed analysis of the proposed bill. So in layman's terms, can we expect any SO in 2022 or NONE? Thanks a bunch!