Discussion of Bills that remove the Per Country Limits - H.R.3012, H,R. 213

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geterdone

what is the difference between hr 3119 and hr 2161 ( idea act)? is hr2161 dead? instead of just introducing the same stuff again and again just get it done!

---

HR 2161 proposes to increase/make quicker the immigration path for people with graduate degrees from US in the STEM fields. The inspiration behind the bill is that US is training people at the graduate level and then sending them back home to compete against US companies. The practical difficulty behind this bill is that requires politicians to support a bill that SUPPOSEDLY "steals American jobs and gives it to immigrants when the unemployment is so high". It gets too complicated to convince your voters that these aliens aren't coming in in the future... but that they are already here, educated, working professionals, earning good money, paying taxes and SS, etc., etc.

HR 3012 is very similar to HR 3119 and basically says that employment based immigration should have nothing do with which country the beneficiary is coming from. The guy who's process started first should get his green card first... regardless of whether he's from India or Belgium. The means to do this is proposed via removal of the 7% per country limit. The inspiration behind is that companies don't care about the person's nationality and that you are more likely to find engineers/techies/etc from India than from Belgium, so stop discriminating on a point that serves no benefit for the US economy. The positive is that these don't raise the number of people coming in as immigrants and is thus more palatable as point of discussion. The negative is that non-Indian/Chinese will oppose this vehemently at every opportunity they get, esp. stressing on how these bills will remove the "diversity" element from employment based immigration.

So why were they both introduced: I am not certain but I believe...
1. It is because of the status of these bills. The bills, when introduced by a representative, are introduced to a "committee". The committee can decide in closed rooms what to do with the bill and never give a reason for that decision to anybody. If you are congressman and are not on that committee, you have no say in whether that bill gets a positive nod from the committee or not. Your only option if you fully support the bill is to introduce your own version. (In short: The democrat just gave her official approval to the republican backed bill). Also note that now both these bills are with the House Judiciary Committee. It doesn't mean that it will, but having these two together makes the chances of this issue moving forward for a real vote in congress a LOT higher now.
2. The reps want to support the IT companies that may be funding them.
3. This is one of those pieces of the whole immigration mess that actually stands a chance of moving forward in the partisan congress. Every body wants to be able to say months/years down the line that "we actually did something" and "got that immigration law changed" whereas the opposing party only talks about it.

Links:
HR 2161 - Immigration Driving Entrepreneurship in America Act of 2011
HR 3012 - Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act (Republican sponsored)
HR 3119 - To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to remove the per-country limitation on employment-based immigrant visas... (Democrat sponsored)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manubhai

[B][COLOR="red"]
HR 3012 is very similar to HR 3119 and basically says that employment based immigration should have nothing do with which country the beneficiary is coming from. The guy who's process started first should get his green card first... regardless of whether he's from India or Belgium. The means to do this is proposed via removal of the 7% per country limit. The inspiration behind is that companies don't care about the person's nationality and that you are more likely to find engineers/techies/etc from India than from Belgium, so stop discriminating on a point that serves no benefit for the US economy. The positive is that these don't raise the number of people coming in as immigrants and is thus more palatable as point of discussion. The negative is that non-Indian/Chinese will oppose this vehemently at every opportunity they get, esp. stressing on how these bills will remove the "diversity" element from employment based immigration.

---

manubhai, from my read 3119 also permits recapture of lost visa numbers and provides a new 'W' visa that would be very relevant to Indian men in particular. Those of us who are single and looking to get married to women in India (old girlfriends or arranged marriages), often push out our GC applications until after we get married (or at least until we set the date - I did that myself, although I could have applied for my GC in 2006, I waited until 2008 until after I got married) because we can't apply for a visa for our wives if we already have our GC. Lofgren's bill introduces the W visa for spouses and minor children of green card holders. Very sensible issue.

As to the recapture of lost visas, while it is a very impactful move, it is effectively a one-time increase in the number of GCs given out, so it may be unpalatable to most politicians in this environment and may be seen as 'legislative creep' by the anti-immigrants when compared to Chafetz. I don't expect any of these bills to pass in this environment, but I think the Lofgren bill is the lesser likely of the two to pass, and may derail the Chaffetz bill too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pedro Gonzales

manubhai, from my read 3119 also permits recapture of lost visa numbers and provides a new 'W' visa that would be very relevant to Indian men in particular. Those of us who are single and looking to get married to women in India (old girlfriends or arranged marriages), often push out our GC applications until after we get married (or at least until we set the date - I did that myself, although I could have applied for my GC in 2006, I waited until 2008 until after I got married) because we can't apply for a visa for our wives if we already have our GC. Lofgren's bill introduces the W visa for spouses and minor children of green card holders. Very sensible issue.

As to the recapture of lost visas, while it is a very impactful move, it is effectively a one-time increase in the number of GCs given out, so it may be unpalatable to most politicians in this environment and may be seen as 'legislative creep' by the anti-immigrants when compared to Chafetz. I don't expect any of these bills to pass in this environment, but I think the Lofgren bill is the lesser likely of the two to pass, and may derail the Chaffetz bill too.

---

Does it make sense to move the legislative posts to another thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manubhai

HR 2161 proposes to increase/make quicker the immigration path for people with graduate degrees from US in the STEM fields. The inspiration behind the bill is that US is training people at the graduate level and then sending them back home to compete against US companies. The practical difficulty behind this bill is that requires politicians to support a bill that SUPPOSEDLY "steals American jobs and gives it to immigrants when the unemployment is so high". It gets too complicated to convince your voters that these aliens aren't coming in in the future... but that they are already here, educated, working professionals, earning good money, paying taxes and SS, etc., etc.

---

manubhai,

It is a lot more than that:

i) Exempts holders of STEM Advanced Degrees from designated US Universities AND ALL EB1B approvals from the numerical limits.

ii) Provides Dual Intent to F-1.

iii) Extension of stay to F-1 if a PERM or I-140 has been pending 365 days as well as giving Employment Authorization to F, H & L under these circumstances.

iv) There is a whole section about Entrepreneur visas.

v) Visas recature and fall over of unused EB visas to EB the next year.

vi) Dependents are not counted against numerical limitations.

vii) Eliminating Employment-Based Per Country Levels

viii) Investing in STEM education.

ix) Speeding up PERM processing and introducing a Premium Process, including for Appeals.

x) Allowing Premium Processing for I-140 appeals.

xi) Strengthening the Prevailing Wage system.

xii) Reforming the H1B system, including higher wages.

xiii) Introducing a grace period of 60 days for an H1B to find new work if laid off or terminated.

xiv) Allowing Promotions.

xv) Similar reforms for L1, including Requiring Prevailing Wage for Certain L-1B Nonimmigrants.

xvi) Some tweaks to the EB5 program to create an EB6 Category.

xvii) Allowing H4 to work.

I think that is a little more than you stated. There are some FB related parts, but not much.

Thanks Spec - Very Informative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spectator

manubhai,

It is a lot more than that:
<deleted for conciseness>
I think that is a little more than you stated. There are some FB related parts, but not much.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spectator

manubhai,

It is a lot more than that: ...

---

Spec, Pedro: You both are correct. Thanks for adding the remaining parts.

Apart from my ignorance with the details, my intent was not to be comprehensive. I was trying to answer the question on their main differences based on what we keep harping about on this thread.... priority dates, movements, how long GC takes, esp. in the India+China context.

Aside: Seeing the details from Spec, although these bills can change drastically by the time they reach the floor, I think HR 2161 is even more unlikely to get any traction. Its too big and wide. Though I'd love H4s being able to work... but in today's environment...seriously???? May be that's why she introduced a second bill... something smaller and a tad bit more realistic!!

I am guessing, if Mr. CO came to know about possible passing of bill HR3012 (which seems to have bipartisan support) effective 1st Oct 2011. And Mr. CO is taking some proactive steps to meet the requirements of HR3012 (If HR3012 does not get approved, he may still be safe since there would be spill over).

Just a theory!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qblogfan

guys, I saw a huge number of approvals of EB2-C on mitbbs, at least 20-30. I think Mr.Co is planning to approve all the old cases before this end of year. I don't know what kind of visa numbers he is using, and I don't understand how he can assign so many visa numbers in the first month of this FY. It looks werid, but I hope all the old cases can be approved and the VB continues to move forward!

---

so now we have a bill for lifting the per country limit. My question to all the gurus is ... if the bill gets passed, were would EB2 stand.. would it be current immediately? Would EB3 cases take up all the visas and EB2 will be looking at everything helplessly?

After the HR3012 bill is passed:

EB2I will get around 40K+ green cards each year (Regular quota + Spillover). EB2 will get current in 2 to 3 years in real sense (no backlog). However EB2I may get current in 1 or 2 years to capture demand and then retrogess.

EB3I will get around 25K green cards for the next 3 years (Regular Quota). After that it will get 40K green cards untill EB3I is current in real sense (no backlog).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nishant_imt

so now we have a bill for lifting the per country limit. My question to all the gurus is ... if the bill gets passed, were would EB2 stand.. would it be current immediately? Would EB3 cases take up all the visas and EB2 will be looking at everything helplessly?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nishant_imt

so now we have a bill for lifting the per country limit. My question to all the gurus is ... if the bill gets passed, were would EB2 stand.. would it be current immediately? Would EB3 cases take up all the visas and EB2 will be looking at everything helplessly?

---

No and No. Category numbers still exist and limits exist on maximums.

It was discussed earlier in the thread.

Read the bill http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h112-3012

EB2 would eventually settle around 2-3 years retrogressed for everybody as long as spillover remains at current (or slightly reduced) levels, while retrogression in EB3 would be 8-9 years for everybody and slowly getting worse.

Isn't that already happening... we received a spillover this year and that's how the dates have moved to Nov 07. Am I missing something here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skpanda

After the HR3012 bill is passed:

EB2I will get around 40K+ green cards each year (Regular quota + Spillover)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nishant_imt

so now we have a bill for lifting the per country limit. My question to all the gurus is ... if the bill gets passed, were would EB2 stand.. would it be current immediately? Would EB3 cases take up all the visas and EB2 will be looking at everything helplessly?

---

Not at all. The bill would permit EB2IC to get 34,000 visa numbers + EB1 & EB5 spill over, while EB3 I would get 28,000 visa numbers for FY2012. Both would move forward tremendously, while EB2ROW would retrogress several years, and EB3 ROW M & P would stand still. EB3 C would stall at early 2006 along with EB3 ROW M & P.

Spillover is not taken for granted. out of the 36K available for India and China (next 3 years), a single country cannot take more than 70%. So around 28K Regular quota and add 12K+ spillover. If spillover is more then even better.

So the number will between 40K to 50K.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nishant_imt

Isn't that already happening... we received a spillover this year and that's how the dates have moved to Nov 07. Am I missing something here?

---

They have been working on so many activites and I lost track.

I think it's very difficult to pass new bills and they have been talking about reform since 2007 and nothing happened.

For EB2, the only hope is to get more spillover in this FY and move PD faster.

I hope CO can move PD into 2008 in the next VB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nishant2200

Sounds good. We should keep an eye out for any pleas to call , email, contact congressmen senators etc.

qblogfan, are the Chinese on to it too.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nishant_imt

Isn't that already happening... we received a spillover this year and that's how the dates have moved to Nov 07. Am I missing something here?

---

Spillover is a transient phenomenon. You may not get any once the economy improves (or if EB3ROW to EB2ROW porting increases). This would set it in stone, so to speak. Also the numbers available through this bill would exceed the spillover received from EB2ROW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nishant_imt

so now we have a bill for lifting the per country limit. My question to all the gurus is ... if the bill gets passed, were would EB2 stand.. would it be current immediately? Would EB3 cases take up all the visas and EB2 will be looking at everything helplessly?

---

Please read this post for your answers:

http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showth...=9544#post9544

Pedro,

If they recapture the Visas as per Zoe Lofgrens bill, at least there is chances of all the categories becoming current is that right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pedro Gonzales

Not at all. The bill would permit EB2IC to get 34,000 visa numbers + EB1 & EB5 spill over, while EB3 I would get 28,000 visa numbers for FY2012. Both would move forward tremendously, while EB2ROW would retrogress several years, and EB3 ROW M & P would stand still. EB3 C would stall at early 2006 along with EB3 ROW M & P.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spectator

No and No. Category numbers still exist and limits exist on maximums.

It was discussed earlier in the thread.

Read the bill http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h112-3012

EB2 would eventually settle around 2-3 years retrogressed for everybody as long as spillover remains at current (or slightly reduced) levels, while retrogression in EB3 would be 8-9 years for everybody and slowly getting worse.

---

I know we are excited about HR 3012 bill that will eliminate per country cap, but there is some ambiguity in the proposition which still needs to be corrected. Bill proposes to strike out Section 202 (a) (5) which I believe governs the use of spillover visas. For e.g if there are any unused visa numbers left in EB1 then it cannot flow to EB2 without existence of such rule. So what will happen to such visas? I understand that there is 70% per country cap on reserved visas but it is also unclear to me if this will override the maximum a category-country can get after spillover in case Section 202 (a) (5) is covered in any other way.

Bill will help EB2 in some way with guaranteed 70% visas but how will fall across and fall down can happen is unclear. In such case 40k+ visas may not be possible for EB2. Bill will help EB3 for sure. I might be missing something here, and may be Spec or others can correct me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shaumack

I know we are excited about HR 3012 bill that will eliminate per country cap, but there is some ambiguity in the proposition which still needs to be corrected. Bill proposes to strike out Section 202 (a) (5) which I believe governs the use of spillover visas. For e.g if there are any unused visa numbers left in EB1 then it cannot flow to EB2 without existence of such rule. So what will happen to such visas? I understand that there is 70% per country cap on reserved visas but it is also unclear to me if this will override the maximum a category-country can get after spillover in case Section 202 (a) (5) is covered in any other way.

Bill will help EB2 in some way with guaranteed 70% visas but how will fall across and fall down can happen is unclear. In such case 40k+ visas may not be possible for EB2. Bill will help EB3 for sure. I might be missing something here, and may be Spec or others can correct me.

---

The bill will just remove the country cap...and gives the visa based only PD FIFO for that category. So there will be only EB1/2/3 and PD. Nothing else.

So this will move the EB2 dates for China and India while rest of the country EB2 will get delayed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snathan

The bill will just remove the country cap...and gives the visa based only PD FIFO for that category. So there will be only EB1/2/3 and PD. Nothing else.

---

I understand that but without spillover rule (if Sec202 (a) (5) governs it ) what if category (e.g. EB1) still have visas left. What will happen to them if there is no FA /FD rule. My only point is are we missing striking Section 202 (a) (5) part should this need to be amended? Nothing else.

Yes... Please refer to spec's post above.

http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showth...0640#post10640

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gcdedo

So this will move the EB2 dates for China and India while rest of the country EB2 will get delayed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by immitime

Pedro,

If they recapture the Visas as per Zoe Lofgrens bill, at least there is chances of all the categories becoming current is that right?

---

Of course, recapture would be awesome news for all immigrants, which is precisely why I think it is difficult for it to pass. I like the fact the two bills out there right now, Lofgren's including recapture, the W2 visa for spouses and minor children of GC holders, and AC21 to L & F visas, along with country cap removals and Chaffetz with just the country cap removals. I think we'll gauge how much appetite legislators have for recapture.

Is the 218,000 number right? Is that how many visa numbers would be recaptured?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nishant_imt

so now we have a bill for lifting the per country limit. My question to all the gurus is ... if the bill gets passed, were would EB2 stand.. would it be current immediately? Would EB3 cases take up all the visas and EB2 will be looking at everything helplessly?

---

It may become current or move couple of years...based on the visa availability. But the bill will be implemented in a phased manner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shaumack

I understand that but without spillover rule (if Sec202 (a) (5) governs it ) what if category (e.g. EB1) still have visas left. What will happen to them if there is no FA /FD rule. My only point is are we missing striking Section 202 (a) (5) part should this need to be amended? Nothing else.

---

Spill over rule will remain the same like EB1->Eb2->Eb3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by immitime

Pedro,

If they recapture the Visas as per Zoe Lofgrens bill, at least there is chances of all the categories becoming current is that right?

---

immitime,

None whatsoever IMO, although the dates might be quite late.

Let's be optimistic and say there are 300k visas max to recapture (I think the Ombudsman mentioned 218,000, Pedro, so that is probably a better figure), and the backlog to today is almost certainly far bigger than that (it is 100k for EB2-IC alone).

The text doesn't talk about how recaptured visas should be allocated.

In a fair world, they would go first to the most retrogressed applicants, especially since no visas have been wasted since 2007 and all EB2 Countries have reached Cut Off Dates in 2007 already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by immitime

Pedro,

If they recapture the Visas as per Zoe Lofgrens bill, at least there is chances of all the categories becoming current is that right?

---

This bill is no-where close to becoming a law.
It is still Immigration subcommittee under house judiciary.
it has to go thru the subcommittees and thn to the house floor.
3012 has some chance of making it to the house floor for voting. because of the co-sponsor Smith who is chairman of judiciary committee and majority of the members are republicans and this bill also proposed by republican.
3119 or 2162 by Zoe has very little chance of moving out of subcommittee.

The passage of 3012 without any amendments is good for C/I but bad for ROW.
The best thing can happen for everyone is that: Zoe is also on that subcommittee and she proposes amendments to 3012 (Add recapture). If they do that, they will get some Democrates' support. If not chances are no democrat will support it. But republicans can still pass this bill in the house. But without any house democrat support, senate probably will not consider or pass this bill.

So the best scenario for everyone for now:
1: Bill 3012 (proposed by republican and supported by Judiciary chairman and its republican majority in the house)
2: with visa recapture amendment (by Zoe- a democrat)
3: effective date : Fiscal year 2012 (this would be great with recapture - lot of work for the agencies for next 2 years but good for all EB immigrants
4: Passed by House Judicial in 2 weeks
5: go for house vote by the end of this month
6: go to senate in November (if there is any democrat support since senate is controlled by democrats)
7: passed in senate by November end
8: become a law by December or early

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snathan

Spill over rule will remain the same like EB1->Eb2->Eb3.

---

Can you tell me what Section of INA Act guide spillover rule? If not then please let Spec clarify this. No offense to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shaumack

I know we are excited about HR 3012 bill that will eliminate per country cap, but there is some ambiguity in the proposition which still needs to be corrected. Bill proposes to strike out Section 202 (a) (5) which I believe governs the use of spillover visas. For e.g if there are any unused visa numbers left in EB1 then it cannot flow to EB2 without existence of such rule. So what will happen to such visas? I understand that there is 70% per country cap on reserved visas but it is also unclear to me if this will override the maximum a category-country can get after spillover in case Section 202 (a) (5) is covered in any other way.

Bill will help EB2 in some way with guaranteed 70% visas but how will fall across and fall down can happen is unclear. In such case 40k+ visas may not be possible for EB2. Bill will help EB3 for sure. I might be missing something here, and may be Spec or others can correct me.

---

Looks like a good catch, schaumack. I only took a quick look just now but I'll put my contract review hat on this evening and look at it again after work. I'd be surprised if IV's lawyers missed something as big as this.

PS:- I guess my review is no longer required, as Spec true to form has provided the answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shaumack

Can you tell me what Section of INA Act guide spillover rule? If not then please let Spec clarify this. No offense to you.

---

I think that is a little unkind to snathan.

INA 202 (a) (5) dealt with otherwise unused visas and Countries who had reached the 7% per Country limit.

If there is no per Country limit, it is not required and must be removed.

A by-product of this is that it removes reference to Quarterly spillover, but that wouldn't be an issue.

Spillover is dealt with by INA: ACT 203 - ALLOCATION OF IMMIGRANT VISAS, specifically 203(b)(1), 203(b)(A) and 203(b)(3)(A).

There has always been a certain ambiguity to it, but the current interpretation is EB4/5 --> EB1 --> EB2 --> EB3 and that is how it must operate if per Country limits were removed. I can envisage a very limited scenario where spillover to EB3 was possible before EB2 became Current, but practically, that will never happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spectator

I think that is a little unkind to snathan.

INA 202 (a) (5) dealt with otherwise unused visas and Countries who had reached the 7% per Country limit.

If there is no per Country limit, it is not required and must be removed.

A by-product of this is that it removes reference to Quarterly spillover, but that wouldn't be an issue.

Spillover is dealt with by INA: ACT 203 - ALLOCATION OF IMMIGRANT VISAS, specifically 203(b)(1), 203(b)(A) and 203(b)(3)(A).

There has always been a certain ambiguity to it, but the current interpretation is EB4/5 --> EB1 --> EB2 --> EB3 and that is how it must operate if per Country limits were removed.

---

I did not meant to offend him but was irked by his reply. Apologies to him.

Anyways, ALLOCATION OF IMMIGRANT VISAS, specifically 203(b)(1), 203(b)(A) and 203(b)(3)(A) - I do not see anything that covers spillover there. Only thing I see about this is in Section 202. Can you please point the excerpts if you do not mind?

Excerpt from May 2011 VB "As mentioned in the May Visa Bulletin, Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) prescribes rules for the use of potentially “otherwise unused” Employment numbers. During May the India Employment Second preference cut-off date is governing the use of such numbers, because India had reached its Employment Second annual limit. "

I think we should be careful that bill is passed keeping everyone's interest and something like this important is not lost, although I have nothing to lose with this. I will close my argument over here.

shaumack,

What piqued my interest in that statement is the word "potentially".I really don't know what that means. I believe INA doesn't have that word. They simply say "Otherwise unused".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shaumack

Excerpt from May 2011 VB "As mentioned in the May Visa Bulletin, Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) prescribes rules for the use of potentially “otherwise unused” Employment numbers. During May the India Employment Second preference cut-off date is governing the use of such numbers, because India had reached its Employment Second annual limit. "

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shaumack

I did not meant to offend him but was irked by his reply. Apologies to him.

Anyways, ALLOCATION OF IMMIGRANT VISAS, specifically 203(b)(1), 203(b)(A) and 203(b)(3)(A) - I do not see anything that covers spillover there. Only thing I see about this is in Section 202. Can you please point the excerpts if you do not mind?

---

On your link, look at paragraph 203(b)(2)(A), which address FD from EB1 to EB2.

It reads,
"Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraph (1), to qualified immigrants who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees ... "

Similarly, 203(b)(1)(A) address Fall Up from EB4 & EB5 to EB1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

shaumack,

What piqued my interest in that statement is the word "potentially". I really don't know what that means. I believe INA doesn't have that word. They simply say "Otherwise unused".

---

I would think 'potentially' may mean 'prorated' or so. I really do not know how extensively they would calculate spillover although they did some advance movements in 2011 on pro-rated basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shaumack

I did not meant to offend him but was irked by his reply. Apologies to him.

Anyways, ALLOCATION OF IMMIGRANT VISAS, specifically 203(b)(1), 203(b)(A) and 203(b)(3)(A) - I do not see anything that covers spillover there. Only thing I see about this is in Section 202. Can you please point the excerpts if you do not mind?

Excerpt from May 2011 VB "As mentioned in the May Visa Bulletin, Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) prescribes rules for the use of potentially “otherwise unused” Employment numbers. During May the India Employment Second preference cut-off date is governing the use of such numbers, because India had reached its Employment Second annual limit. "

I think we should be careful that bill is passed keeping everyone's interest and something like this important is not lost, although I have nothing to lose with this. I will close my argument over here.

---

Pedro has covered it really.

Here are all the relevant extracts from the law I quoted:

Quote:

---

203(b)(1) Priority workers. - Visas shall first be made available in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (4) and (5), to qualified immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C):

---

That covers Fall Up from EB4/5 to EB1.

Quote:

---

203(b)(2)(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraph (1), .....

---

That covers Fall Down from EB1 to EB2.

Quote:

---

203((b)(3)(A) (A) In general. - Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), .....

---

That covers Fall Down from EB1 and EB2 to EB3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by immitime

Q Please check your PM

---

Thanks immitime, appreciate it. Reproducing for everybody's benefit. Red emphasis mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by immitime

This is what Pappu posted on IV as their great acheivement to be....sharing with you

After 6 years of hard work, patience & persistence, we are at the doorstep of success

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

Dear Members,

We are excited and pleased to announce that after 6 years of our hard work, your hard work, we finally have a bill that has a very good chance of actually passing in the Congress in next 6-8 weeks.

For over 6 months, members of Immigration Voice have been working behind the scenes to bridge the gap between various sides, coordinating between different groups, our employers and petitioning the Members of Congress. On the 4th anniversary of Immigration Voice rally, members from across the country organized over 160 meetings with the key decision makers in the Congress. To prevent any unnecessary attention we coordinated and organized these meetings with energetic and highly motivated group of Immigration Voice members and leaders.

On 22nd September, Congressman Chaffetz and Smith sponsored H.R. 3012 in the US House of Representatives. We applaud Congressman Chaffetz and Judiciary committee Chairman Lamar Smith for leading the effort for removing per country limits. Here is the press release from Congressman Chaffetz website. H.R. 3012 is scheduled for mark-up in the House Judiciary Committee for this Thursday and Friday. See details here on Judiciary committee website. Here is the bill summary. This is a big deal given the fact that not one bill for high skills immigration has passed Congress since AC21 Act in Oct 2000. This will be the first one in 11 years.

The proposed bill H.R. 3012 removes per-country limits in employment based green card category. If enacted, this bill will drastically reduce the wait times of everyone in the current backlogs. A similar bill was sponsored by Congresswoman Lofgren in August, 2008. So the idea of this bill has bi-partisan support in the Congress. Immigration Voice applauds Congresswoman Lofgren's leadership on fixing high skilled immigration system.

The most important thing now is to give this effort a final and consequential push. Although this bill has wide support, it is not a done deal yet. We all need to actively get involved in making phone calls and sending emails/faxes to the Congress in order to give this bill a grassroots voice and also to out-number, outlast and out-weigh any push from either people opposed to immigration in general or opposed to removal of per-country limits. Now is not a time to take a break and risk 6 years of effort that went into reaching this phase.

We all agree that high skills immigration should allocate and distribute green cards to the skilled immigrant workforce based on principle of first-come-first-serve-basis. Members of Congress have listened and now they agree with this principle. Our employers whom we wrote letters and petitions internally in large high-tech companies also agreed with us. And even when our case has lots of merit, merits alone do not drive the legislative activity in Congress. There are many bills in Congress that have a lot of merits and can do a lot of good but are never voted in Congress because a small faction holds it up. We cannot let that happen to us, not this time.

You are successful in your job and in your career trajectory. You either like your job, or, you like where your career is headed. However, in order to protect our accomplishments and our position in life and career, working really hard at our jobs is not enough. We have to protect what we have and what we aspire by making sure that we will be around in this country for the foreseeable future. If you have contributed time, money or effort so far to Immigration Voice, that’s great. But that is needed again for next 6-8 weeks. If you have never done this, now is the time to do this. If this bill fails, there will not be another bill in 2012 because that’s an election year where legislation do not happen easily. In 2013, the chances are slim again and depend on election outcomes. So this is it.

If you recently received your green card then you can easily relate to the problems your friends continue to go through. If you are only 1-2 years away from being current in your case, a lot can happen in next 1-2 years. You may face a worse economy, be laid off, be in a company that gets acquired by another company or merges with another company. All this is not good for green card process. So let us do all we can to protect our accomplishments, our future and our families’ future.

We will be shortly announcing concrete action items for making phone calls, emails and faxes, both on forums and via newsletters. So please stay tuned, pay attention to this bill and do your part. Because if this bill fails this year, it will be a failure that likely sticks with all of us for next 2-3 years.

Thank you!

Team IV

---

So here is some big news with a good disclaimer at the bottom and a pathetic attempt to take credit for. Yes their secrecy does help themselves because they can make any tall claims.

Nathan why don't you educate us on who the core team is - which companies they met - which senators etc. If you are concerned about secrecy - obviously - then here is a simple thing to do. Just have one fortune 500 tech company or one senator/representative make a public statement before or after passing of this bill that they worked with IV and it provided them valuable insights. Just try raising this as a topic internal to the IV masters and see the reaction.

My best wishes for this bill though. I refuse to believe IV had any substantial part in formulating it though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by immitime

Thanks Q,

there are two bills in congress one Rep. Jason Chaffetz from Utah and Rep. Lamar Smith introduced H.R.3012 and one Rep Zoe Lofgrens H.R. 2161.. if both of them passes the house and senate and becomes law, which is a dream and lot of pulling and pushing may occur if at all those comes for the floor votes. but Hypothetically what you have posted are there in those bills. Even though it is a political game by two parties but as election year any thing can happen.

These are the only scope for Eb-3 India who filed before Year 2006.

If anyone have any ohter way for EB-3 India people who are terribly backlogged Please spill some light. and I am sure with the existing laws, EB-3 India will never ever move more than a week or a month each VB!

---

If the Chaffetz bill passes, EB3I will move to Sep 2004 by FY2012 and EB3ROW will stagnate there. If the Lofgren bill passes, the 218,000 recaptured visas will come to bear. I would hope that it was applied on a pure PD basis (so EB3I first, EB3 ROW next, EB2 I next etc), but realistically, they'll probably apply the spillover order here too (first to EB2 and then to EB3). This would mean, EB2 would become current (using up ~ 100,000 visa numbers) and EB3 (I, C, M, P, ROW) would move to early 2007. There will be some minor differences in EB3 since the country caps are not completely lifted right away (also in Lofgren's bill, they only get lifted starting in FY2013), so ROW could move ahead of I by a few months, but this is probably accurate at a high level.

I've moved the very interesting discussion about Bills that remove the Per Country Limits to their own thread http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showth....3012-H.R.3119

I think it deserves that, since it is an important topic in its own right.

Please continue to post about the subject there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackbrown_890

...
So the best scenario for everyone for now:
1: Bill 3012 (proposed by republican and supported by Judiciary chairman and its republican majority in the house)
2: with visa recapture amendment (by Zoe- a democrat)
3: effective date : Fiscal year 2012 (this would be great with recapture - lot of work for the agencies for next 2 years but good for all EB immigrants
4: Passed by House Judicial in 2 weeks
5: go for house vote by the end of this month
6: go to senate in November (if there is any democrat support since senate is controlled by democrats)
7: passed in senate by November end
8: become a law by December or early

---

Jackbrown - You rock! I thought I was the optimist here... but you beat me hands down.

May be this is a waste of time but I thought I'll ask anyways... Does any one (including jackbrown) know any typical time frames for these bills in the subcommittees? Or is there nothing as a "typical" time frame?

In other words, why is the above jackbrown's "best case scenario"? Is that a typical best-case timeline?

"become a law by December"... woooow... I never looked at it that way!

Thanks!

Here is a link to IV's grassroot recommendations. xxxxxx