Yes. Theoretically one can calculate SOFAD separately for I and C. It just makes it more complicated to compute and even to understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gcseek
Printable View
Yes. Theoretically one can calculate SOFAD separately for I and C. It just makes it more complicated to compute and even to understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gcseek
GCseekQuote:
Originally Posted by gcseek
When spillover is applied both I&C PD will be same date. This will be calculated based on the Expected SOFAD and the # of pending cases.Yes, if china got less cases before that PD they get lesser allocation than India.
gcseek,Quote:
Originally Posted by gcseek
Thanks. You are absolutely correct.
I have edited my original reply so that the figures are correct for other people who might read it.
Spec
Thanks, Q, Veni and Spec.
As per I-4885 Pending report, the following cases are pending:
Prior to 2002 - 342
Upto Apr 7, 2002 - 1182 (April's 704 is divided by 4 to get approximate upto April 7th)
After April 7th - 6519 (bringing the total to 7701 for year 2002).
As per Demand Data as of March , 2011, prior to 2003 there are 7500 cases.
Demand data says that Prior to 2003 (upto 2002 end) it is 7500. My question is, 7500 is after considering April 2011 Bulletin (ie. upto April 17th) or Mar 2011 (upto 14th Mar 2002)?. If it is upto April 7th, then can I assume that CP pending cases after April 7th to be 981 (7500 - 6519)? If not, it might be more from upto Mar 2002 (approx 1403). Also, can anybody tell us how many would have been cleared upto April Bulletin (of course, it will be an educated guess). My reason is that my PD being April 15, 2002, it will be cleared if the cut off date reaches April 22, 2002. I want to know how fast, I can get. Every month's bulletin is important since my daughter is going to college this fall (expensive college. I want to do this for her) and I do not have money, but I want to take a loan. The FAFSA has already rejected her application saying that she is not eligible.
Q, T(Teddy), S(Spec), V (Ven) and others (please forgive me for not mentioning your names individually). You do not know how much your calculations can change people's decision making in their lives. If you have come into my immigration life (pun very much intended) much earlier than May 2010 (when I started looking into these forums), I would have saved atleast $60,000). So, your calculations are very important to people. So, having spicy conversations are good and yet, please keep up the good work. It keeps the hopes alive.
Also, I could have posted this in EB2 thread with the corresponding numbers, but I am trying to have a near suicidal attempt to keep this thread going now and then. I know that atleast 500 people would have viewed this in the next hour.
gcseek you are just a week away. That date should definitely reach by Sep 11. Or even earlier e.g. July 2011.
It looks like EB3I is moving at the speed of quota utilization + EB3->2 porting. The pace looks good enough that you will become current hopefully by Jul 2011 and certainly by Sep 2011.
In either case you are going to get greened before end of this year for sure. Stay relaxed. Good luck with the loan. Your worst case situation is you have to pay out of pocket for first semester. Keep your fingers crossed.
p.s. - Thanks for sharing your story. This is what keeps me motivated to keep doing what we are doing here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gcseek
My priority date is Sept 2007(EB3) ROW. Can anyone please predict when I'll get my green card? Thanks.
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY10...ort-TableV.pdf
How is possible that Mexico EB3 gets more than 2800 visas (5983 see page 11) in 2010 fiscal year?
Thats a valid question and traditional explanation (that I dont' buy into) is that because Mexico underutilizes EB2 and so they are still well under their overall EB cap. An even more pervert case that is similar to this is S Korea getting a lot more in EB2 because they don't utilize as much in FB.Quote:
Originally Posted by isantem
In both cases what is alarming is the clear violation of 7% limit at category and subcategory level and the freewheeling interpretation that USCIS applies. Unless somebody help us understand better - only spillovers (i.e. FB to EB or vice versa) & FA & FD can violate 7% limit.
USCIS does state that 7% is an overall limit across FB and EB .... but on what basis? Its not clear to me.
Q,Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
I am using the following two scenarios to explain EB2-South Korea and EB3-Mexico numbers
1. Non retrogresses country & Non retrogressed category (EB2-South Korea)
As long as South Korea stays as non retrogresses, as well as EB2ROW, they can get approved as many application as they can with-in the category using all Fall across numbers ( similar to EB1 usage by any country).
2. Retrogressed country & Retrogressed category (EB3-Mexico)
In this case when ever fall across numbers are available will go to the oldest PD with in the category, traditionally EB3 Mexico is retrogressed compared to EB3 ROW, and is the reason for higher usage numbers.
In both cases USCIS is assigning FA numbers as per AC21, it's not violation of 7% limit rule!(only applies for non FA or non SOFAD numbers). Hope this provided the clarification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by isantem
isantem,Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
For a fuller explanation, refer to FAQs post #8.
Q,
The basis is from INA 202(a)(2) which says:
203(a) is FB and 203(b) is EB.Quote:
(2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. - Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed 7 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 2 percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.
The meaning has been debated endlessly in forums, but the VO has consistently interpreted it to mean 7% of the combined total of FB & EB allocations.
Hi everybody!
My PD in EB3 "Other workers" ROW is 01/06/2006. I am currently in H4 status while my wife is holding a teaching job in H1B. Her employer is considering to proceed with her PERM application in EB3 ROW category. Do you think there is a sens to do it. I have just a guess that my PD will be current around March 2012. Can you give me your intput on our case. Thank you, Kris.
You may or may not get a chance this year, but if you don't get a chance your spouse need to have an approved/pending PERM/i140 to get H1 extended beyond 6th year!Quote:
Originally Posted by kiko21
With PD in EB3 ROW 2011, she may not be able to file I-485 before her H1B gets to the end in 2016? We are hoping she could file under EB2 ROW, she has MED and 2 years of expierience and then this is different story. Thank you for your response and advice, Kris.
Kilko21,Quote:
Originally Posted by kiko21
If your spouse can get H1 extended until 2016, she can definitely bet on your PD unless she is eligible for EB2, can find a qualifying job and willing employer.
Spec
Thanks. Yes I agree that VO has interpreted it that way. I am not sure whether consistently. Conveniently? May be yes.
A case in point is vertical vs horizontal spillover. Until 3 years back USCIS had (consistently?) misintepreted spillovers as vertical until a judge ruled in favor of horizontal spillover. So I think the same is true with EB vs FB. Many people don't realize this ... but overallocating mexico or S korea EB2 visas because they are underutilizing EB or FB visas is a perverse way of visa allocation and travesty of justice. So somebody needs to challenge this in court.
In fact the whole country quota itself is inhuman and unjust for the people from China and India. But I am digressing now .. :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
Veni001,
My wife H1B contract started in 2010 and she loves her job. Our lawyer is saying that the PERM can be filed under EB3 ROW and it will be stronger case than my PD 01/06/2006 EB3 "other workers" ROW. I hope that my PD will be current around March 2012 and then we both are all set, but this is my uneducated guess. Should We have another lawyer have a look into her case to determinate EB2 or EB3 category?
Q,Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Could you point me to the court case where the spillover was changed by court ?
As far as I know, this was changed by lobbying/meeting with visa office by a bunch of EB2 guys backed by IV.
gcq ... you got me there :-) I meant to say lobbying lawsuits etc ... I do not know if there was or was not a particular case tied to it or whether IV's efforts made it happen.
The point is that USCIS was misinterpreting the laws or rules or guidance related to spillover. And I am afraid that they do it even today as it relates to 7% limit.
Thanks for pointing out. I would be curious if you know more why and how the spillover rules changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
With the reduced demand there are lot of attorneys out there looking for work! If they believe USCIS interpretation is not correct, i don't think they will wait on any one!Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
veni ... that's fine. I am not a lawyer for sure. I am only quoting from actually what happened in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by veni001
Q,Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
I don't mean you are wrong, i am just generalizing on interpretation(whether 7% or SOFAD).
Not sure I understand. But going back to lawyers or any other influential pro-immigration groups - the EB pool is so small that it is not financially or otherwise rewarding to help this group. Besides the fixed visas per year ensure that any rule change is a zero sum game. So in effect one category / country may gain but only at the expense of others. e.g. the vertical to horizontal spillover interpretation helped EB2 at the expense of EB3.
All these reasons make it non-attractive to pick it up as a cause.
Our objective on this website is only to bring clarity to GC processing. So only trying to share what I understand. Not trying to argue or anything. Apologize if comes across that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by veni001
It was the AC21 law (passed by Pres: Bill Clinton) that caused a change in spillover rules. This legislation was passed in 2000.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
However visa office still continued to follow the spillover rules set before AC21 law. This interpretation was incorrect as AC21 had already changed the spillover rules.
Some EB2 folks sensed this, they formed a group under IV's umbrella, approached visa office with backing from lawyers and forced visa office to interpret the spillover rules correctly as per AC21 law.
On a side note, EB3-I doesn't lose much with this change as the spillover would have come to them only once EB2 and EB3 ROW are current. With the spillover rule change, EB3-I guys can port to EB2 and take advantage of the spillover change.