EB2 Predictions (Rather Calculations) - 2012

Q, Are you basing this "the statement that they might move it by 4 months past march" merely based on the recent announcement from CO that Jan and Feb may see similar movement to Dec?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

What I don't understand is that if they move dates upto mar 2008, then there really isn't going to be an immediate need to move it beyond. But its possible they will move it 4 months past that to generate sufficient demand and then retrogress.

One thing is for sure ... these guys don't want to issue a single EAD unless they thing a case is close to being adjudicated in 4-5 months. Seen from other angle, it means, if your case becomes current, there is a very good chance that you will get a GC in 4-5 months.

---

Because they made their intentions clear by saying that they do not want to issue an EAD unless a person is close to obtaining a GC. Somebody posted a link or actual text a few pages back. That is very consistent with the slow movement. Otherwise they would have made the date current and then retrogressed.

A very good reason not to make dates current was that many senators complained that EAD was almost a green card. So that's the reason USCIS has resorted to slow movement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stemcell

Q,
Why do you think they do not want to issue EAD ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesman

Q, Are you basing this "the statement that they might move it by 4 months past march" merely based on the recent announcement from CO that Jan and Feb may see similar movement to Dec?

---

Yes, there and in somewhere else I read the statement (from DOS) that basically said that they would like to ensure 4-5 months of cycle time for those current. So basically thats how they intend to move the dates.

Also it does mean USCIS implementing QSP going forward. The reason being, without QSP, the 485 approvals surge in last few months but they by that time it is too late for them to really know how many applications they really need to take in. So a better way to do it is do a QSP in a manner where they take a good measure of their surplus and keep applying it throughout the year. So I think although DOS has said that the dates will retro at some time, inspite of that EB2IC cases will continue to be approved a higher than quota rate because of QSP.

Don't claim to know it all .... but that's the logic that makes most sense to me

I am trying to formulate a theory to support your last part Q, as well as credit to Teddy on a conversation I had with him earlier today, and by this attempt to formulate a theory, try to explain the incredible phenomena of the Oct VB in which people are also getting green cards, not just date movement. Assuming by law, DOS
can only give 27% (is it 30%?) of all visas available in a category in the first three quarters max., following would be availability:

EB1: 10810 or 3603 a month
EB2: 10810 or 3603 a month
EB4: 2683 or 894 a month
EB5: 2683 or 894 a month

Total: 26986 a quarter, or 8995 a month

233 a month is already the normal quota for EB2IC.

Each month USCIS fails to produce adequate demand of non EB2IC, the unused numbers are given to EB2IC. This is monthly spillover, not even quarterly spillover, lets call for argument sake. Or at least if quarterly only, then each quarter, similarly all remaining is grabbed onto EB2IC. What has happened this FY 2012 so far, however, almost looks like monthly spillover, it is not QSP.

Now say DOS wants to always maintain a inventory of 20k (assuming 7k approvals of non EB2IC as worst case) to always remain ahead of the curve of 27k a quarter, hence the intent of keeping on moving dates. Anytime USCIS presents a substantial non EB2IC demand, or DOS feels they obtained 30k inventory, which is higher than the 26986 max a quarter, they pause or adjust the pace of the movement, cleverly done and based on amount of non EB2IC demand presented by USCIS, they might not even need retrogression. This way EB2IC keeps moving, inventory keeps getting built up, and based on non EB2IC demand by USCIS, adequate congestion control is done, any bursts of non EB2IC are accommodated and when the bursts go away, again same EB2IC picks up steam. It is a fair system IMHO. Visas are not wasted, current categories remain current, laws are followed, there is no mad rush anytime, EB2IC is not penalized for USCIS's failure to process other categories backlog consistently and then by them making up for it suddenly in last quarter like they did in last FY August. If they are applying this to EB4 and EB4 demand then keep in mind, this also takes away the possibility or at least reduces by great deal the quantum of EB1 backlog reduction cannibalizing EB5 and any possible EB4 SO from coming onto EB2IC.

this idea may be totally not right, but there might be some form of at least QSP in play to explain. only those who try, may fail, tear apart as you like :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

Because they made their intentions clear by saying that they do not want to issue an EAD unless a person is close to obtaining a GC. Somebody posted a link or actual text a few pages back. That is very consistent with the slow movement. Otherwise they would have made the date current and then retrogressed.

A very good reason not to make dates current was that many senators complained that EAD was almost a green card. So that's the reason USCIS has resorted to slow movement.




Yes, there and in somewhere else I read the statement (from DOS) that basically said that they would like to ensure 4-5 months of cycle time for those current. So basically thats how they intend to move the dates.

Also it does mean USCIS implementing QSP going forward. The reason being, without QSP, the 485 approvals surge in last few months but they by that time it is too late for them to really know how many applications they really need to take in. So a better way to do it is do a QSP in a manner where they take a good measure of their surplus and keep applying it throughout the year. So I think although DOS has said that the dates will retro at some time, inspite of that EB2IC cases will continue to be approved a higher than quota rate because of QSP.

Don't claim to know it all .... but that's the logic that makes most sense to me

---

Q/Other Gurus, What I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around is that the following pieces of information:

-> SOFAD similar to last year will move the dates to Mar 2008 (with 5k buffer?)
-> The SOFAD we will potentially see in 2012 is potentially lesser due to lower SO from EB1

seem to contradict with this other piece of information:

-> CO claims to move date to Mar 1 in Dec and hopes to move it further in Jan and Feb

What am I missing? Does CO want a larger buffer than what the Guru's in this forum are expecting to consider?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

Also it does mean USCIS implementing QSP going forward. The reason being, without QSP, the 485 approvals surge in last few months but they by that time it is too late for them to really know how many applications they really need to take in. So a better way to do it is do a QSP in a manner where they take a good measure of their surplus and keep applying it throughout the year. So I think although DOS has said that the dates will retro at some time, inspite of that EB2IC cases will continue to be approved a higher than quota rate because of QSP.

Don't claim to know it all .... but that's the logic that makes most sense to me

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grnwtg

Hi codesmith,

yes, those application means I485 applied ( i think it does not matter if I140 approved or not, Guru's correct me if i am wrong).
and your second question, 485 approved means GC is almost done except that you need card physically.

---

It seems like if I-140 is pending then the corresponding I-485 will not show up in the inventory report. refer to page-5 in the below pdf.

http://www.ilw.com/immigrationdaily/...4-mayorkas.pdf

another interesting doc below, 485-SOP, old one, they must have new SOP now, but interesting to note that secondary evidence for birth certificate could be the biographical data pages of the applicantís passport; page 7- 3.12

http://www.ilw.com/seminars/august2002_citation2b.pdf

Because they made their intentions clear by saying that they do not want to issue an EAD unless a person is close to obtaining a GC. Somebody posted a link or actual text a few pages back. That is very consistent with the slow movement. Otherwise they would have made the date current and then retrogressed.


I wasnt aware of that.I was of the opinion that EAD was a money making machine for them...and also moving the dates forward was IMO to make everything efficient.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veni001

Stemcell,
Based on Oct'11 inventory ~100k EB3 application pending & going through EAD renewal every other year, so USCIS may not want to double their work load!

---

Veni,
That makes more sense. Is the EAD now given for 2 years or 3 years.I had read somewhere that USCIS was planning to give 3 yr EAD and ** was lobbying for an administrative fix.Not sure if that worked out....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stemcell

Because they made their intentions clear by saying that they do not want to issue an EAD unless a person is close to obtaining a GC. Somebody posted a link or actual text a few pages back. That is very consistent with the slow movement. Otherwise they would have made the date current and then retrogressed.


I wasnt aware of that. I was of the opinion that EAD was a money making machine for them...and also moving the dates forward was IMO to make everything efficient.....

---

With revised fee schedule implemented in Q3 of 2007, there is no fee for EAD/AP renewal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stemcell

Veni,
That makes more sense. Is the EAD now given for 2 years or 3 years.I had read somewhere that USCIS was planning to give 3 yr EAD and ** was lobbying for an administrative fix.Not sure if that worked out....

---

Most of the EB3 pending applicants are getting for 2 years and EB2 for 1-year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesman

Q/Other Gurus, What I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around is that the following pieces of information:

-> SOFAD similar to last year will move the dates to Mar 2008 (with 5k buffer?)
-> The SOFAD we will potentially see in 2012 is potentially lesser due to lower SO from EB1

seem to contradict with this other piece of information:

-> CO claims to move date to Mar 1 in Dec and hopes to move it further in Jan and Feb

What am I missing? Does CO want a larger buffer than what the Guru's in this forum are expecting to consider?

---

yesman,
What is CO's plan is anyone's guess, but what ever be the plan they need to do it quickly(before new applications trickle down to demand data).

If FY2012 SOFAD is less, as we are estimating here, then we may not see similar PD movement next year (Oct'12 onwards).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veni001

yesman,
What is CO's plan is anyone's guess, but what ever be the plan they need to do it quickly(before new applications trickle down to demand data).

If FY2012 SOFAD is less, as we are estimating here, then we may not see similar PD movement next year (Oct'12 onwards).

---

SOFAD may be less so may be demand (depending upon where dates stop for this FY).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

What I don't understand is that if they move dates upto mar 2008, then there really isn't going to be an immediate need to move it beyond. But its possible they will move it 4 months past that to generate sufficient demand and then retrogress.

One thing is for sure ... these guys don't want to issue a single EAD unless they thing a case is close to being adjudicated in 4-5 months. Seen from other angle, it means, if your case becomes current, there is a very good chance that you will get a GC in 4-5 months.

---

Q, if my PD (dec 31, 2007) gets current in next bulletin and I send my application on Dec 1st/1st week, what is the approximate time to receive EAD? How do I know i will get a gc in few months or have to wait for next FY (OCT 2012). Will I get a notification that I'm counted this year ?

Thanks,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veni001

yesman,
What is CO's plan is anyone's guess, but what ever be the plan they need to do it quickly(before new applications trickle down to demand data).

---

Veni, Why is this the case? Because the dates need to be retrogressed before the applications trickle down in case the dates moved beyond the point of availability?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veni001

If FY2012 SOFAD is less, as we are estimating here, then we may not see similar PD movement next year (Oct'12 onwards).

---

Again, I find it hard to believe that CO (who knows exactly how many EB3->EB2 porting is happening, what is the EB1, EB5 or EB2 ROW demand and other factors that govern the SOFAD) would not be able to take that into account for FY2012 itself. So, why will this not impact FY2012 movement is what I'm asking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nishant2200

Now say DOS wants to always maintain a inventory of 20k (assuming 7k approvals of non EB2IC as worst case) to always remain ahead of the curve of 27k a quarter, hence the intent of keeping on moving dates. Anytime USCIS presents a substantial non EB2IC demand, or DOS feels they obtained 30k inventory, which is higher than the 26986 max a quarter, they pause or adjust the pace of the movement, cleverly done and based on amount of non EB2IC demand presented by USCIS, they might not even need retrogression. This way EB2IC keeps moving, inventory keeps getting built up, and based on non EB2IC demand by USCIS, adequate congestion control is done, any bursts of non EB2IC are accommodated and when the bursts go away, again same EB2IC picks up steam. It is a fair system IMHO. Visas are not wasted, current categories remain current, laws are followed, there is no mad rush anytime, EB2IC is not penalized for USCIS's failure to process other categories backlog consistently and then by them making up for it suddenly in last quarter like they did in last FY August. If they are applying this to EB4 and EB4 demand then keep in mind, this also takes away the possibility or at least reduces by great deal the quantum of EB1 backlog reduction cannibalizing EB5 and any possible EB4 SO from coming onto EB2IC.

this idea may be totally not right, but there might be some form of at least QSP in play to explain. only those who try, may fail, tear apart as you like :)

---

Nishat, I really like your explanation although I have a hard time believing that this would not be breaking the law. What if the bursts you refer to in non EB2IC happen in the last couple of months of FY2012 and there is not enough visa in those categories available because they have been doled out to EB2IC. Would that not be violating the law? Is this not what the quarterly SO supposed to prevent by allowing the excess to overflow only once every quarter?

suninphx you are right. The gap should narrow. But it happens through the year as we see the trend. At the beginning of the year we have no idea which way things are going to move. Every year there is some dark horse. e.g. last year was Kazarian year, the year before was labor year (wholesale labor approvals), the year before 485 year (wholesale backlog clearance for EB1 and EB2ROW). So these things do require variations in projections. But as year progresses we know which way the wind is blowing. But mind you at the end of the day CO/VO/USCIS can so easily throw a wrench in our projections. Thats just the plain and simple and painful truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suninphx

No one can deny that porting is there and will continue.
My point is as years go by we should be able to narrow down gap between actual and worst case scenario. Gap for this year is 42%. I have no problem with some one being conservative , but opinions needs to be refined based on the actual picture which is not happening IMHO
As far as comments from DOS about porting goes - you know very well that they are not consistent at all about their opinion in this regard.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nishant2200

What has happened this FY 2012 so far, however, almost looks like monthly spillover, it is not QSP.

---

Nishant, QSP doesn't have to occur after a quarter. It can be applied within a quarter - every day week or month. QSP only means that the spillover limit is quarterly visa limit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesman

What am I missing? Does CO want a larger buffer than what the Guru's in this forum are expecting to consider?

---

The answer is absolutely yes. He has indicated that he intends to provide GC in 4-5 months since filing 485. So he will within 2012 move the dates to not just where he think eventually SOFAD wil take him but about 4-5 months beyond that point (AND NO FURTHER)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dec2007

Q, if my PD (dec 31, 2007) gets current in next bulletin and I send my application on Dec 1st/1st week, what is the approximate time to receive EAD? How do I know i will get a gc in few months or have to wait for next FY (OCT 2012). Will I get a notification that I'm counted this year ?
Thanks,

---

I am not really tracking EAD time but you can get that from USCIS dashboard. That should be at least directionally correct. My rough guess would be 3-4 months. As per GC as I said - 4-5 months is his intention. He has clearly indicated that his preference is NOT to build a huge pipeline of 485.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesman

Veni, Why is this the case? Because the dates need to be retrogressed before the applications trickle down in case the dates moved beyond the point of availability?

---

That's what CO indicated in November VB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesman

Again, I find it hard to believe that CO (who knows exactly how many EB3->EB2 porting is happening, what is the EB1, EB5 or EB2 ROW demand and other factors that govern the SOFAD) would not be able to take that into account for FY2012 itself. So, why will this not impact FY2012 movement is what I'm asking.

---

Most of the EB1,EB2ROWMP and EB5 won't take more than 3-5 months to get the approval (140/526 to 485 approval). I don't think DOS/USCIS can estimate(guesstimate)what could be this demand in Q3 or Q4 and issue numbers to EB2IC now!

Wov I thought only at end of quarter. Then my theory sounds correct but its QSP. I am convinced now he is doing QSP and in a way (early approvals) that needs USCIS blessing and coordination. qbf, u ought to love CO now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

suninphx you are right. The gap should narrow. But it happens through the year as we see the trend. At the beginning of the year we have no idea which way things are going to move. Every year there is some dark horse. e.g. last year was Kazarian year, the year before was labor year (wholesale labor approvals), the year before 485 year (wholesale backlog clearance for EB1 and EB2ROW). So these things do require variations in projections. But as year progresses we know which way the wind is blowing. But mind you at the end of the day CO/VO/USCIS can so easily throw a wrench in our projections. Thats just the plain and simple and painful truth.




Nishant, QSP doesn't have to occur after a quarter. It can be applied within a quarter - every day week or month. QSP only means that the spillover limit is quarterly visa limit.


The answer is absolutely yes. He has indicated that he intends to provide GC in 4-5 months since filing 485. So he will within 2012 move the dates to not just where he think eventually SOFAD wil take him but about 4-5 months beyond that point (AND NO FURTHER)


I am not really tracking EAD time but you can get that from USCIS dashboard. That should be at least directionally correct. My rough guess would be 3-4 months. As per GC as I said - 4-5 months is his intention. He has clearly indicated that his preference is NOT to build a huge pipeline of 485.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

suninphx you are right. The gap should narrow. But it happens through the year as we see the trend. At the beginning of the year we have no idea which way things are going to move. Every year there is some dark horse. e.g. last year was Kazarian year, the year before was labor year (wholesale labor approvals), the year before 485 year (wholesale backlog clearance for EB1 and EB2ROW). So these things do require variations in projections. But as year progresses we know which way the wind is blowing. But mind you at the end of the day CO/VO/USCIS can so easily throw a wrench in our projections.

---

I agree to what you said. We don't really have any control on how dates are going to move. I made that statement because few people kept saying that porting was 6000 even at end of last FY.
But again, if CO is going to go by current strategy of 'GC in 4-5 months' then porting of 3500 vs 6000 will not 'hurt' that much(the movement becoming more predictable).

CO and everybody else (i.e. lawyers!) scared EB2IC about EB3 portings. I initially thought they were 6K max. But at the end of the year I came ot the conclusion they were 3-4K max including CP. So pure portings could be 2-3K max. Eitherway - both numbers are insignificant in the larger picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suninphx

I agree to what you said. We don't really have any control on how dates are going to move. I made that statement because few people kept saying that porting was 6000 even at end of last FY.
But again, if CO is going to go by current strategy of 'GC in 4-5 months' then porting of 3500 vs 6000 will not 'hurt' that much(the movement becoming more predictable).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suninphx

I agree to what you said. We don't really have any control on how dates are going to move. I made that statement because few people kept saying that porting was 6000 even at end of last FY.
But again, if CO is going to go by current strategy of 'GC in 4-5 months' then porting of 3500 vs 6000 will not 'hurt' that much(the movement becoming more predictable).

---

Dude I hope u dont mean me! I in fact pointed out only 2-3k based on Year to year inventory, Teddy pointed in a point of local offices input and made proposal of 4k max. And for next FY I was asking whether 6k shud be absolute worst case!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

CO and everybody else scared EB2IC about EB3 portings. I initially thought they were 6K max. But at the end of the year I came ot the conclusion they were 3-4K max including CP. So pure portings could be 2-3K max. Eitherway - both numbers are insignificant in the larger picture.

---

Most EB3 IC in 2007 post july and onwards 2008,2009 and so on must have gone in EB3 only to reserve their PD. many of them might be even qualified, just the company did not pursue EB2. What can we think about their impact on post july 2007 dates moved world.

Nishant

Back in 2007,2008 there was no thought of retaining their PD at all. The reality was , there was no clear picture of the backlog, DoS was moving the PDs here and there allover the years, and noone thought of EB3 is going to be this big mess. We were in the middle of the situation , the company didnt show any sign of starting the GC process watching many of our friends filed in EB3 which was very easy and straight forward not getting audits or rejected in the I-140 stage .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nishant2200

Dude I hope u dont mean me! I in fact pointed out only 2-3k based on Year to year inventory, Teddy pointed in a point of local offices input and made proposal of 4k max. And for next FY I was asking whether 6k shud be absolute worst case!

---

No no...no one in particular.... I was pointing towards thought process

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nishant2200

Most EB3 IC in 2007 post july and onwards 2008,2009 and so on must have gone in EB3 only to reserve their PD. many of them might be even qualified, just the company did not pursue EB2. What can we think about their impact on post july 2007 dates moved world.

---

For rest of 2007 I don't think eb2:eb3 percentage is as high as 2008/09 and onwards.

Guys, I agree for both of your points.

One concern is that people realizing their PD is reserved or pretty sure folks in 2010, 2011 on already knew this when they jumped into EB3 IC.

Once these guys port, it will be hidden porting, as they dont even have a Eb3 485 filed, the PERM will show up as a 2011, 2012 onwards PERM, but it will lead to a 485 based on an earlier date. Now, by this time, if we agree that pre july 2007 porting has reached its peak, and will be downsizing, then maybe this new porting schema will just take place of the old one gradually, and maybe since its hidden porting, it will reduce the actual EB2 IC demand of the years from which the new PERM was, and hence again, system will normalize.

Thank you for the conversation. So I am going to consider 4k porting from Spec's table for FY 2012 as the worst case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanmani

Nishant

Back in 2007,2008 there was no thought of retaining their PD at all. The reality was , there was no clear picture of the backlog, DoS was moving the PDs here and there allover the years, and noone thought of EB3 is going to be this big mess. We were in the middle of the situation , the company didnt show any sign of starting the GC process watching many of our friends filed in EB3 which was very easy and straight forward not getting audits or rejected in the I-140 stage .

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suninphx

For rest of 2007 I don't think eb2:eb3 percentage is as high as 2008/09 and onwards.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suninphx

I agree to what you said. We don't really have any control on how dates are going to move. I made that statement because few people kept saying that porting was 6000 even at end of last FY.
But again, if CO is going to go by current strategy of 'GC in 4-5 months' then porting of 3500 vs 6000 will not 'hurt' that much(the movement becoming more predictable).

---

It seems that pre july 2007 inventory world, CO made decision of only doing SO in last quarter, and allowing USCIS to catch up at the end of the year if they wanted to. In Post july 2007 world, CO seems to have made decision to apply full quarterly quota as allowed 27% max of total visas in each quarter, and hence spillover shall be QSP. I know you debate if the 5-6k for Oct VB come from FY 2011 or FY 2012 cap. If you consider they came from FY 2012 cap, QSP seems to be the most likely explanation, and since it is spillover, visas are to be given in order of PD, and hence EB2IC are moving together, instead of EB2 C marching a bit forward. And that also may explain the demand data figures which show very less reduction in the EB2 C numbers as compared to the EB2 I numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesman

Nishat, I really like your explanation although I have a hard time believing that this would not be breaking the law. What if the bursts you refer to in non EB2IC happen in the last couple of months of FY2012 and there is not enough visa in those categories available because they have been doled out to EB2IC. Would that not be violating the law? Is this not what the quarterly SO supposed to prevent by allowing the excess to overflow only once every quarter?

---

yesman, I think now that I know QSP can be applied anytime, not just end of quarter, I would like to throw away monthly idea. And in the case you mentioned, at the very worst, the EB1 EB2ROW spike would be satisfied 2 months later in next quarter. DOS/USCIS can still call it current category and manage. I think USCIS will let know DOS of spike like this, like they did in August of this year, and the agencies will cleverly manage the PR for this.

We still cant be sure of QSP, or if QSP every quarter they want to do. Our fate is in their hands!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nishant2200

It seems that pre july 2007 inventory world, CO made decision of only doing SO in last quarter, and allowing USCIS to catch up at the end of the year if they wanted to. In Post july 2007 world, CO seems to have made decision to apply full quarterly quota as allowed 27% max of total visas in each quarter, and hence spillover shall be QSP. I know you debate if the 5-6k for Oct VB come from FY 2011 or FY 2012 cap. If you consider they came from FY 2012 cap, QSP seems to be the most likely explanation, and since it is spillover, visas are to be given in order of PD, and hence EB2IC are moving together, instead of EB2 C marching a bit forward. And that also may explain the demand data figures which show very less reduction in the EB2 C numbers as compared to the EB2 I numbers.

---

With exchange of thoughts we all had over past few days I am inclined towards believing that numbers are from FY2012. There is still unexplained mismatch between Oct and Nov demand data though ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suninphx

With exchange of thoughts we all had over past few days I am inclined towards believing that numbers are from FY2012. There is still unexplained mismatch between Oct and Nov demand data though ?

---

suninphx I agree there is no complete vague explanation yet. But what is clear at least to me is that the reduction of around 5.4k is coming from some sort of spillover quota only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nishant2200

suninphx I agree there is no complete vague explanation yet. But what is clear at least to me is that the reduction of around 5.4k is coming from some sort of spillover quota only.

---

Yes thats most logical explanation at this point.

I have been following your theory on QSP in last few posts and becoming more and more convinced that CO has decided to do QSP in post July 2007 world.

Good Job!! thanks!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nishant2200

It seems that pre july 2007 inventory world, CO made decision of only doing SO in last quarter, and allowing USCIS to catch up at the end of the year if they wanted to. In Post july 2007 world, CO seems to have made decision to apply full quarterly quota as allowed 27% max of total visas in each quarter, and hence spillover shall be QSP. I know you debate if the 5-6k for Oct VB come from FY 2011 or FY 2012 cap. If you consider they came from FY 2012 cap, QSP seems to be the most likely explanation, and since it is spillover, visas are to be given in order of PD, and hence EB2IC are moving together, instead of EB2 C marching a bit forward. And that also may explain the demand data figures which show very less reduction in the EB2 C numbers as compared to the EB2 I numbers.

---

Hello Guys, I prepared an affidavit and I wanted to make sure that I am not missing something important. I am sorry but I find most of the activity in this thread so I am posting my affidavit here as I got no response from birth certificate thread.
Please let me know if I should add, remove or change anything.

AFFIDAVIT

English translation of same first name


I, the undersigned, Pradip (alias Pradeep) "Last name" aged – XX years, Hindu by religion, presently residing at XXXXXX, India, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare on oath that:


1. I am the deponent herein and a citizen of India.

2. I was born on XXXX, India.


3. I was married to XXX on Oct 7, 1965 in Mumbai, India.


4. I am father of my son, XXX XXXX who was born on December XXXX in Mumbai India currently residing in xxxx USA address xxxxx.


5. Pradip and Pradeep are two different ways to spell the first name from my native language of the region into English. This should not be considered name change.




6. My first name is stated as "Pradip" on my son’s birth certificate and some other relevant documents and as "Pradeep" on my son’s passport and some other relevant documents.


7. "Pradip" and "Pradeep" are phonetically accepted spelling of the same first name in India.


8. Therefore, the following first names refer to the one and the same person:

Pradeep
Pradip


The above are the variations of the same name and should not be considered name changes. I am executing this affidavit to clear any discrepancy which may arise from official documents bearing either name “Pradip” or “Pradeep”.

So I do hereby solemnly affirm that foregoing are true and correct statements.


_______________________________ ____________
Deponent Signature Date


Acknowledged and signed in the presence of ______________________, attorney counsel.



_______________________________ ____________
Attorney Signature Date

Can someone who has done this already share your experience?

http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showth...2175#post12175

Sounds like you are planning provide this affidivt for spelling correction. Getting a birth certificate with corrected spelling is not that hard as far as my experienc and my friends experiences are concerned (both from same state, but different districts). I got my son's birth certificate reissued in right spelling recently (small spelling variation like yours). In my opinion you should approach the local authorities in India for re-issue with correct spelling. Was your bith registerd when you were born or around that time? if your birth registered recently, or corrected certificate cannot be issues, our law firm was not even willing to submit that birth certificate. Instead they wanted a birth affidivit as if birth was not registered. Thay also wanted couple of other evidences of birth date and father's name. In my case i provided them birth affidivit, school leaving certificate (it has date of birth, and father's name in right spelling), and PAN card issued by state tax commissioner. Hope that helps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karma1979

Hello Guys, I prepared an affidavit and I wanted to make sure that I am not missing something important. I am sorry but I find most of the activity in this thread so I am posting my affidavit here as I got no response from birth certificate thread.
Please let me know if I should add, remove or change anything.

AFFIDAVIT

English translation of same first name


I, the undersigned, Pradip (alias Pradeep) "Last name" aged – XX years, Hindu by religion, presently residing at XXXXXX, India, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare on oath that:


1. I am the deponent herein and a citizen of India.

2. I was born on XXXX, India.


3. I was married to XXX on Oct 7, 1965 in Mumbai, India.


4. I am father of my son, XXX XXXX who was born on December XXXX in Mumbai India currently residing in xxxx USA address xxxxx.


5. Pradip and Pradeep are two different ways to spell the first name from my native language of the region into English. This should not be considered name change.




6. My first name is stated as "Pradip" on my son’s birth certificate and some other relevant documents and as "Pradeep" on my son’s passport and some other relevant documents.


7. "Pradip" and "Pradeep" are phonetically accepted spelling of the same first name in India.


8. Therefore, the following first names refer to the one and the same person:

Pradeep
Pradip


The above are the variations of the same name and should not be considered name changes. I am executing this affidavit to clear any discrepancy which may arise from official documents bearing either name “Pradip” or “Pradeep”.

So I do hereby solemnly affirm that foregoing are true and correct statements.


_______________________________ ____________
Deponent Signature Date


Acknowledged and signed in the presence of ______________________, attorney counsel.



_______________________________ ____________
Attorney Signature Date

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suninphx

Ok that number sounds unrealistic at least for me.
Is there any official source which confirmed from where Oct numbers are coming?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nishant2200

In my opinion, in absence of official source info, we should think that the numbers come from FY 2012 cap only.

5-6k is a huge number to do the trick of assigning number in September for approval in October, if that's even legal, Ron Gotcher doesnt agree, neither does Spectator I would like to think. Especially if you are going to claim visas ran out in half the month, and keep EB1, EB2 ROW demand waiting for that. They even put the verbiage in that memo to USCIS that the abrupt exhaustion is due to sudden demand you showed to us in August.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suninphx

We will have to agree to disagree again. I am not sure if Ron agrees or not and He has been wrong multiple times in the past. I will wait for more concrete official proof.

---

suninphx in addition to what Nishant has said here are some additional indicators that these numbers are from the 2012 cap.

- On Trackitt the number of EB2 ROW and EB1 numbers in both Aug and Spe are closer to double than usual. This is indicative of actual high number of approvals in these months. Also note that May, June approvals of I140 were very high. I have noticed one thing that whenever CO announces that huge numbers are available like in May even USCIS goes into high gear on 140 and thereby diminishes the actual movement that CO would have done as he is bound to go by USCIS input at that time.
- CO commented in the bulletins about the heavy EB2 ROW and EB1 demands.
- In 2007 the reverse had happened the cap numbers were allocated to the cases when the date became current actual approvals came months later, here however the cap numbers cannot be legally allocated to the case as Apr 15 - Jul 15th were not current in the last 2 months of FY 2011.
- Even now there is a very high number of people in the inventory for both EB2 ROW and EB1 and with I485 processing fast these cases can be virtually made ready for approval in a month’s time.
- For the last 2 years USCIS has been announcing in early September that numbers are over this means that they did a neat job.
- In the inventory published on Oct 01 the demand for EB2 I/C for Apr - Jul is present in full and not reduced strength.
- Effectively 6K numbers have been consumes which is virtually equal to I/C annual cap. The demand data for Oct 2011 showed 2.5K as opposed to 8.5K in Sep 2011 the numbers are normally reduced in the demand data for the month in which the numbers are actually allocated.
All these points strongly indicate that the cutover from 2011 to 2012 was a clean one and all the approvals that came in Oct 2012 are from 2012 cap. I hope all these factors are convincing enough that these are indeed 2012 numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeddyKoochu

suninphx in addition to what Nishant has said here are some additional indicators that these numbers are from the 2012 cap.

- On Trackitt the number of EB2 ROW and EB1 numbers in both Aug and Spe are closer to double than usual. This is indicative of actual high number of approvals in these months. Also note that May, June approvals of I140 were very high. I have noticed one thing that whenever CO announces that huge numbers are available like in May even USCIS goes into high gear on 140 and thereby diminishes the actual movement that CO would have done as he is bound to go by USCIS input at that time.
- CO commented in the bulletins about the heavy EB2 ROW and EB1 demands.
- In 2007 the reverse had happened the cap numbers were allocated to the cases when the date became current actual approvals came months later, here however the cap numbers cannot be legally allocated to the case as Apr 15 - Jul 15th were not current in the last 2 months of FY 2011.
- Even now there is a very high number of people in the inventory for both EB2 ROW and EB1 and with I485 processing fast these cases can be virtually made ready for approval in a month’s time.
- For the last 2 years USCIS has been announcing in early September that numbers are over this means that they did a neat job.
- In the inventory published on Oct 01 the demand for EB2 I/C for Apr - Jul is present in full and not reduced strength.
- Effectively 6K numbers have been consumes which is virtually equal to I/C annual cap. The demand data for Oct 2011 showed 2.5K as opposed to 8.5K in Sep 2011 the numbers are normally reduced in the demand data for the month in which the numbers are actually allocated.
All these points strongly indicate that the cutover from 2011 to 2012 was a clean one and all the approvals that came in Oct 2012 are from 2012 cap. I hope all these factors are convincing enough that these are indeed 2012 numbers.

---

Teddy, thanks for detailed reply.

Thanks for your reply. My father's name in everything in India is registered as Pradip (for eg all my degrees from India, school leaving certificate etc) and on my passport my middle name is Pradeep, so everything after coming to USA (my master's degree, driver's license etc) I had to use Pradeep as my father's name. So changing the name on my birth certificate will not solve my problem. I have to get an affidavit showing that the same name can be spelled in two different ways in English.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sreddy

Sounds like you are planning provide this affidivt for spelling correction. Getting a birth certificate with corrected spelling is not that hard as far as my experienc and my friends experiences are concerned (both from same state, but different districts). I got my son's birth certificate reissued in right spelling recently (small spelling variation like yours). In my opinion you should approach the local authorities in India for re-issue with correct spelling. Was your bith registerd when you were born or around that time? if your birth registered recently, or corrected certificate cannot be issues, our law firm was not even willing to submit that birth certificate. Instead they wanted a birth affidivit as if birth was not registered. Thay also wanted couple of other evidences of birth date and father's name. In my case i provided them birth affidivit, school leaving certificate (it has date of birth, and father's name in right spelling), and PAN card issued by state tax commissioner. Hope that helps.

---

Hello, I have just registered to this site. Have been following this thread for the last two days and am impressed with the depth of the discussions regarding predictions about EB2, EB3 dates. Also noticed that quite a few members are active on the site. All the discussions interest me because I'm on EB2 and my PD is 02/10. Because of the positive moment in the last few months, I've been awaiting the Dec visa bulletin. According to the current trend, I think I would be eligible to apply for 485 in about a year. I know I'm being very optimistic, Any Comments or predictions about 02/10 PD?

Two positive directions/news flows around -
1.Cutoff dates moving favorably for many EB2 applicants
2.Immigration Bill H.R.3012 moving in positive direction

Things look good for EB2IC in general for now.

Does anyone see a reason/logic/distant array of hope for CO to make dates current for all to take new applicants? I know that the CO is not in favor of issuing EAD's but is there any situation where CO doesn't have any option but to make dates current for all, resulting into intake?

Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suninphx

Ok that number sounds unrealistic at least for me.
Is there any official source which confirmed from where Oct numbers are coming?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gclongwait

10K from 3.5 months. Thats kind of high. Demand data of no previous month has shown 3K demand/month (except July). If my memory serves me then I think in general it has been around 2K to 2.3K per month. Any reason why you think that wont hold true?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanmani

Yes, I too think the estimation is too high.

I agree with Gclongwait's range of 2 to 2.3K at the max.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suninphx

That's for EB2IC and EB3IC combined right? Teddy can easily produce 10K number out of this. With his conservative approach.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suninphx

Sure. I like to go with PERM data and calculate myself. I can make my own assumptions in that case :). I am getting around 8000 which is much less than what Teddy projected.

---

Here is how arrived at the 10K figure. The rough assumption per month is 3K instead of 2.5K and since the later half of July had some people already in the system I just added 1K instead of 1.5K.
Now Spec's compilation is definitely a great compilation I probably cannot come even close in terms of class and caliber. Let’s discuss some of the assumptions in that compilation, Spec has himself suggested that these assumptions need
http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showth...oved-in-FY2011
60% EB2 PERM Certifications - If we compare the Jul 2007 inventory figures the ratio is higher than 66%. People who filed in EB3 post Jul 2007 have already ported to EB2, so now when the actual filing time comes it won't be a surprise if EB2 to EB3 is 75% especially for Jul - 2007 to Dec 2007. Remember at this time there were no issues with both labor and I140. 75% may look huge but it is probably closer to reality assuming someone had 0 years of experience in 2007 and had a PD of around this time now everyone has 5 years. There is no way by which these people could be accounted for in any porting calculations because they are not in the inventory. I just met a colleague his EB3 PD was Sep 2007 however he ported to EB2 recently so these are the kind of cases that will appear suddenly.
2.05 dependent ratio - We should assume that almost everyone with that kind of PD would be married (Parents in I/C do not allow that kind of freedom:) - Now with this factor it would mean that only 1 in 20 families have a non USC kid, I would assume that that probably this is like a 1 in 4 case so the factor should be atleast 2.25.
- 20% I140 denial rate is fine but 85% of 2007 people remaining are slightly liberal but let’s carry them over.
Now with just these 2 factors skewed up following is the result.
8600 * (2.25/2.05) * (75/60) = 11798.
Just by slightly modifying the 2 factors slightly we arrive at 11.5K, so 10K really is a centrist value in that regard. In all my calculations I have always maintained 3K as the density for the later half of 2007 come 2008 this definitely comes down to 2.5K and then 2K.

Teddy,

If I look at Trackitt data for the month of October there are only 1 or 2 cases that have filed for 485 with PD date > July 15'2007. Does it take 4-5 months to file 485 after dates become current or does it show if there is less demand after July 15'2007.

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeddyKoochu

Here is how arrived at the 10K figure. The rough assumption per month is 3K instead of 2.5K and since the later half of July had some people already in the system I just added 1K instead of 1.5K.
Now Spec's compilation is definitely a great compilation I probably cannot come even close in terms of class and caliber. Let’s discuss some of the assumptions in that compilation, Spec has himself suggested that these assumptions need
http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showth...oved-in-FY2011
60% EB2 PERM Certifications - If we compare the Jul 2007 inventory figures the ratio is higher than 66%. People who filed in EB3 post Jul 2007 have already ported to EB2, so now when the actual filing time comes it won't be a surprise if EB2 to EB3 is 75% especially for Jul - 2007 to Dec 2007. Remember at this time there were no issues with both labor and I140. 75% may look huge but it is probably closer to reality assuming someone had 0 years of experience in 2007 and had a PD of around this time now everyone has 5 years. There is no way by which these people could be accounted for in any porting calculations because they are not in the inventory. I just met a colleague his EB3 PD was Sep 2007 however he ported to EB2 recently so these are the kind of cases that will appear suddenly.
2.05 dependent ratio - We should assume that almost everyone with that kind of PD would be married (Parents in I/C do not allow that kind of freedom:) - Now with this factor it would mean that only 1 in 20 families have a non USC kid, I would assume that that probably this is like a 1 in 4 case so the factor should be atleast 2.25.
- 20% I140 denial rate is fine but 85% of 2007 people remaining are slightly liberal but let’s carry them over.
Now with just these 2 factors skewed up following is the result.
8600 * (2.25/2.05) * (75/60) = 11798.
Just by slightly modifying the 2 factors slightly we arrive at 11.5K, so 10K really is a centrist value in that regard. In all my calculations I have always maintained 3K as the density for the later half of 2007 come 2008 this definitely comes down to 2.5K and then 2K.

---