EB2 Predictions (Rather Calculations) - 2011

That is one of the reason why massive forward movement followed by retrogression is a good idea from USCIS DOS perspective.

It allows them to take in a bunch of applications and then chew over them at their own speed and still not waste visas in case there is significant SOFAD.

To answer your question .... they have a gut feel even at the beginning of the year simply based on the PERM and 140 pipeline. As year progresses .. by end of Q2 they have pretty darn good idea how the year is going to end. However that would be too late and so the movement needs to happen much earlier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anuran

But when do they get an exact idea of how much SOFAD there will be? They cannot move cutoff dates based on an arbitrary prediction of SOFAD. Or do they get an exact estimate at the end of the first quarter?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

Spec ... I agree that backlog may not get cleared this year.

However as per the DOS having luxury.... I am not so sure. Next year they will again have 20-30K SOFAD. If they wait until May-Jun 2012 to move dates ...they simply won't be able to utilize SOFAD. So teh dates will move ahead at least 9 months prior to SOFAD IF USCIS WERE TO FULLY UTILIZE VISAS WITHIN EB2 CATEEGORY.

---

I agree with anuran.

DOS are constrained by law as to what they can do. Until April, only 54% of visas can be issued and DOS can only move the Cut Off Dates consistent with visas being available. April introduces another potential 27%. That seems the absolute earliest any movement could be made.

Underutilization in other Categories/Countries gives some wiggle room, whilst still staying within the quarterly limits.

However, I think DOS need until at least April (when the May VB Cut Off Dates are set) to judge the trends for all Categories for the year.

That gives 5 full months to adjudicate new applications and is 3 months ahead of Spillover being released. USCIS have to "step up to the plate" and ensure that happens. As I said previously, DOS have a fallback to not waste visas, if USCIS are unable to do so.

It would be a greater "crime" within DOS to advance EB2 IC too far and for other non-limited Countries to be deprived of visas. The conservative nature of DOS suggests they won't let that happen.

At the end of the day, none of us knows what is going to happen. It does make for an interesting discussion though and you may well be correct. :)

That's fine ... lets agree to disagree. Good that there is not a groupthink here.

I particularly would disagree about

Quote
It would be a greater "crime" within DOS to advance EB2 IC too far and for other non-limited Countries to be deprived of visas.
Unquote

The 7% limit coupled with FA FD related rules strictly in order of PD would ensure that other non-limited countries are not deprived of visas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spectator

I agree with anuran.

DOS are constrained by law as to what they can do. Until April, only 54% of visas can be issued and DOS can only move the Cut Off Dates consistent with visas being available. April introduces another potential 27%. That seems the absolute earliest any movement could be made.

Underutilization in other Categories/Countries gives some wiggle room, whilst still staying within the quarterly limits.

However, I think DOS need until at least April (when the May VB Cut Off Dates are set) to judge the trends for all Categories for the year.

That gives 5 full months to adjudicate new applications and is 3 months ahead of Spillover being released. USCIS have to "step up to the plate" and ensure that happens. As I said previously, DOS have a fallback to not waste visas, if USCIS are unable to do so.

It would be a greater "crime" within DOS to advance EB2 IC too far and for other non-limited Countries to be deprived of visas. The conservative nature of DOS suggests they won't let that happen.

At the end of the day, none of us knows what is going to happen. It does make for an interesting discussion though and you may well be correct. :)

---

If they don't accept the new I485s beforehand, they will be in a situation where the only choice would be to make the dates current (not some random date). Unless monthly spillover rules are kept in place there is no way USCIS can set a date other than current to know the demand.

it's the time DOS/CIS needs to introduce another date system to accept new 485s ahead (may be an year in advance to cutoff) and move the cutoff dates as per spill over availablity

Spec, just by moving dates aggressively for EB2IC to build the inventory, there would be no harm for non IC countries. you are correct if they issue visas to retrogressed countries by keeping non IC people in line

I'm waiting for filing I485 so I would agree my perspective is biased but I don't think I'm posting with irrational reasoning

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

That's fine ... lets agree to disagree. Good that there is not a groupthink here.

I particularly would disagree about

Quote
It would be a greater "crime" within DOS to advance EB2 IC too far and for other non-limited Countries to be deprived of visas.
Unquote

The 7% limit coupled with FA FD related rules strictly in order of PD would ensure that other non-limited countries are not deprived of visas.

---

I think you slightly misunderstood my post, but let's leave it there.

It is a very contentious issue and we can only speculate how it is going to be handled.

I think we can probably agree that any aggressive forward movement would almost certainly be followed by substantial retrogression (outside of spillover season).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bieber

If they don't accept the new I485s beforehand, they will be in a situation where the only choice would be to make the dates current (not some random date). Unless monthly spillover rules are kept in place there is no way USCIS can set a date other than current to know the demand.

it's the time DOS/CIS needs to introduce another date system to accept new 485s ahead (may be an year in advance to cutoff) and move the cutoff dates as per spill over availablity

Spec, just by moving dates aggressively for EB2IC to build the inventory, there would be no harm for non IC countries. you are correct if they issue visas to retrogressed countries by keeping non IC people in line

---

bieber,
I agree to some extent, But only after EB2I&C PD is moved to July 2007, until then they have enough cases to work with! And also they will be getting new demand(PWMB and porting, almost ~25k) as EB2I&C PD progressing towards 01AUG2007.

If and when DOS makes EB2 PD current(assume July 2012/2013) they will get enough case to work with for another 6 years from that time! ( assuming SOFAD will continue at equal or greater than 2010/11 rate during that 6 years)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bieber

it's the time DOS/CIS needs to introduce another date system to accept new 485s ahead (may be an year in advance to cutoff) and move the cutoff dates as per spill over availablity

---

Since we are not sure about the system, they are already adopting, we cannot suggest that they adopt an alternate system. One thing I see missing is transparency. CIS is not telling us why they moved the date by 2 months in the May bulletin. Just throwing the demand numbers that was used to determine the cutoff dates provides us with no no clues as to why they moved, say 2 months in May bulletin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spectator

I think we can probably agree that any aggressive forward movement would almost certainly be followed by substantial retrogression (outside of spillover season).

---

Yes. I agree on this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bieber

If they don't accept the new I485s beforehand, they will be in a situation where the only choice would be to make the dates current (not some random date).

---

Bieber you make a good point here. Agree.
I think that's how the dynamics will work. I do not know about the timing. But in terms of movement .. thats the dynamic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bieber

it's the time DOS/CIS needs to introduce another date system to accept new 485s ahead (may be an year in advance to cutoff) and move the cutoff dates as per spill over availablity

---

Other than transparency, they can do something else. Exact spillover numbers are known only at the end of the FY. But at the end the FY they have no processing power to utilize off those numbers which may be ~20k or so. Hence they have to do start using partial estimated spillover numbers way before the end of the FY. They have to do that to avoid wasting that 20k. Instead what they can actually do is, FY10 spillover could be carried over to FY11. That way they can utilize the cap for 2011 and the spill from 2010 at the same time and also provide us with better estimates. But I do not drive the policies and procedures at CIS. :)

veni

i agree with you, not sure how you wanted to connect the blue sentences. I don't see a reason why they would want to choose from jan1st 2008 (end of calendar), oct 1st 2008 (end of fiscal), oct 1st 2009 (known information is 2008/2009 demand is low) other than making current.

I know they can be as unpredicted as possible but here we are just trying to understand their logic/motive behind this.

If you look at family-based categories, DOS/USCIS were faulted by Ombudsman for not moving dates aggressively and wasting visa numbers - which then spilled over to employment based categories.

So in the last year DOS aggressively moved the dates only to substantially retrogress them later . Esp. F2A - Its Dec 2010 visa bulletin cut off date was Aug. 2010. In May 2011 visa bulletin that date has retrogressed to 08 June 2007.

Something similar to will happen for EB2 retrogressed nations. I think DOS will try to move dates to the point that will give them approx. 30K cases (based on last few years consumption) or so and then retrogress and try to consume them in the following year.

Rest assured, the date movement will be volatile with people getting pissed off that someone else got GC in spite of later PD etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bieber

veni

i agree with you, not sure how you wanted to connect the blue sentences. I don't see a reason why they would want to choose from jan1st 2008 (end of calendar), oct 1st 2008 (end of fiscal), oct 1st 2009 (known information is 2008/2009 demand is low) other than making current.

I know they can be as unpredicted as possible but here we are just trying to understand their logic/motive behind this.

---

biber,
I was pointing those two because those statements contradict each other.
I think we need to closely watch what they are doing with FB movement lately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kd2008

If you look at family-based categories, DOS/USCIS were faulted by Ombudsman for not moving dates aggressively and wasting visa numbers - which then spilled over to employment based categories.

So in the last year DOS aggressively moved the dates only to substantially retrogress them later . Esp. F2A - Its Dec 2010 visa bulletin cut off date was Aug. 2010. In May 2011 visa bulletin that date has retrogressed to 08 June 2007.

Something similar to will happen for EB2 retrogressed nations. I think DOS will try to move dates to the point that will give them approx. 30K cases (based on last few years consumption) or so and then retrogress and try to consume them in the following year.

Rest assured, the date movement will be volatile with people getting pissed off that someone else got GC in spite of later PD etc.

---

kd2008,
This is a very good observation, FB is almost always retrogressed and see what they did last year, they did not make it current to see what is out there.
Since USCIS know EB2I&C demand very well now( at least they can look at their i140 receipts/approval data)they can/may implement the same here!

Some great reponses guys.

I probably presented the most conservative option in the hope that we would have a good discussion.;) However, it is not an impossible scenario, although maybe unlikely.

I do agree that DOS would probably like to have some known demand pending - the question is how much.

As has been pointed out, DOS did not make various FB Categories Current to stimulate demand. There are also some obvious differences regarding AOS vs CP between FB and EB. CP cases have a substantial dropout rate, particularly in FB where the wait time is so long.

In fact, DOS moved the FB dates forward over a period of 8 months and there were only really 3 months where the movement was substantial.

Possibly one lesson for DOS, was that it takes time for the demand to surface. In reality, they probably moved the dates too far and then had to retrogress dramatically. For FB, there was nowhere else for the visas to go if there was not enough demand generated.

The current EB2 backlog for IC is in the region of 33k.

In eventually moving the Cut Off Dates to July 2007, another 7k demand will be generated by PWMB.

Moving the Cut Off Date to December 2007 will generate another additional 15k demand.

So from today, the EB2 IC demand would be 33 + 7 + 15 = 55k plus porting numbers to December 2007.

After porting, this year will likely consume something like 29-34k of that 55k.

Even at the lower end, 21k + porting numbers is a fairly healthy buffer for DOS.

Therefore, I don't see the dates moving much beyond December 2007, even if DOS want to be quite aggressive.

As Q pointed out, Cut Off Date movement does take time to translate to visa demand, so possibly the movement would have to be relatively early, but I don't believe it will be in this fiscal year.

Feel free to rip it apart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spectator

Some great reponses guys.

I probably presented the most conservative option in the hope that we would have a good discussion.;) However, it is not an impossible scenario, although maybe unlikely.

I do agree that DOS would probably like to have some known demand pending - the question is how much.

As has been pointed out, DOS did not make various FB Categories Current to stimulate demand. There are also some obvious differences regarding AOS vs CP between FB and EB. CP cases have a substantial dropout rate, particularly in FB where the wait time is so long.

In fact, DOS moved the FB dates forward over a period of 8 months and there were only really 3 months where the movement was substantial.

Possibly one lesson for DOS, was that it takes time for the demand to surface. In reality, they probably moved the dates too far and then had to retrogress dramatically. For FB, there was nowhere else for the visas to go if there was not enough demand generated.

The current EB2 backlog for IC is in the region of 33k.

In eventually moving the Cut Off Dates to July 2007, another 7k demand will be generated by PWMB.

Moving the Cut Off Date to December 2007 will generate another additional 15k demand.

So from today, the EB2 IC demand would be 33 + 7 + 15 = 55k plus porting numbers to December 2007.

After porting, this year will likely consume something like 29-34k of that 55k.

Even at the lower end, 21k + porting numbers is a fairly healthy buffer for DOS.

Therefore, I don't see the dates moving much beyond December 2007, even if DOS want to be quite aggressive.

As Q pointed out, Cut Off Date movement does take time to translate to visa demand, so possibly the movement would have to be relatively early, but I don't believe it will be in this fiscal year.

Feel free to rip it apart.

---

Nothing to rip apart :) , just to add, since FB2AI&C advanced 13 months from May 2010 to June 2010, if they use the same method (or madness) we should see that aggression for EB in June 2011!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veni001

biber,
I was pointing those two because those statements contradict each other.
I think we need to closely watch what they are doing with FB movement lately.

---

Veni, actually what I mentioned in that post are 2 different scenarios, they cannot set random date on the cutoff dates (I know they can do anything but that's just my point of view) but if they initiate another date system parallelly to accept new I485s and they can set that at random date to build the inventory and move the cutoff dates in orderly fashion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bieber

Veni, actually what I mentioned in that post are 2 different scenarios, they cannot set random date on the cutoff dates (I know they can do anything but that's just my point of view) but if they initiate another date system parallelly to accept new I485s and they can set that at random date to build the inventory and move the cutoff dates in orderly fashion

---

bieber,

I think that would be a good solution, but I'm not sure that it wouldn't need legislation to implement.

There was previously talk of a pre-registration system for I-485. The 2 track approach could have been a natural evolution of that proposal.

As proposed, it might not have necessarily led to the ability to submit I-485, but it would have given DOS very good visibility of I-485s to be submitted for a particular PD.

That would have allowed DOS to move the dates ahead in a timely manner, without having to guess the future demand.

Spec

I remember that legislation, there used to be some updates on oh law firm website and the proposed start date on the bill used to get updated every 6 months.

if they actually expect pre-registration and then move the dates accordingly based on that informaion there will be no use with EAD/AP which is kind of weird, so if we assume they issue EAD with pre-reg, also there is no point in setting a date for that pre-reg process so essentially everyone who have approved 140 can register, but if everyone is getting EADs (which is almost like GC) with a approved 140, practially it wouldn't matter when one gets the actual greencard. is there something wrong with that, no but it will be too good to be true to belive

I think USCIS should remove the condition of dates being current on I485. The condition of dates being current before filing 485 is quite cruel - especially for EB3IC ..... those guys ... they are never going to have their date current in foreseeable future if their date is anytime past 2006. So they can't change employers and have no option other than porting.

p.s. - The reason that condition doesn't make sense is because technically the person (and his sponsor) has completed all the requirements for greencard. And the person is only waiting for adjustment of status or CP. So why put the person's GC in jeopardy should he lose job? By having that condition on 485 filing, the USCIS is jeopardizing the applicants GC.

I sincerely think that EB3IC guys should explore making such a case to USCIS first and possibly to courts if USCIS doesn't act favorably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bieber

Veni, actually what I mentioned in that post are 2 different scenarios, they cannot set random date on the cutoff dates (I know they can do anything but that's just my point of view) but if they initiate another date system parallelly to accept new I485s and they can set that at random date to build the inventory and move the cutoff dates in orderly fashion

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qesehmk

I think USCIS should remove the condition of dates being current on I485. The condition of dates being current before filing 485 is quite cruel - especially for EB3IC ..... those guys ... they are never going to have their date current in foreseeable future if their date is anytime past 2006. So they can't change employers and have no option other than porting.

p.s. - The reason that condition doesn't make sense is because technically the person (and his sponsor) has completed all the requirements for greencard. And the person is only waiting for adjustment of status or CP. So why put the person's GC in jeopardy should he lose job? By having that condition on 485 filing, the USCIS is jeopardizing the applicants GC.

I sincerely think that EB3IC guys should explore making such a case to USCIS first and possibly to courts if USCIS doesn't act favorably.

---

It was proposed via regulatory action in Fall 2009. See http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAg...&RIN=1615-AB82

Since then, it has been removed from the agenda. I think, it did not pass the legal muster and hence was subsequently abandoned.

Thanks KD. Very good info indeed. What do you mean "did not pass legal muster".

Do you think people have a chance if they go to court?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kd2008

It was proposed via regulatory action in Fall 2009. See http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAg...&RIN=1615-AB82

Since then, it has been removed from the agenda. I think, it did not pass the legal muster and hence was subsequently abandoned.

---

Q, laws are written pretty broadly - these many visa, these many categories, here are the rules etc. Some govt. agency then interprets them and sets down procedures. The link I posted refers to the Office of Policy and Strategy of the USCIS. This is the body that will see if certain interpretation will be challenged in court, will it stand in court etc. They dropped it - meaning it is their belief that adopting that agenda item will be stretching the written law too far, will probably be challenged in court etc. It is what happens with many govt agencies. They don't want to be seen as being too creative in implementing the law. Moreover, the next elected administration can undo the change. Hence Congressional action is preferred even tough it is very difficult to achieve.

the link below gives how many times it was postponed
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/servle...ield=1615-AB82

the last time they did in Fall 2010 and status shows Withdrawn. It doesnt have a reason why it is withdrawn. the below link is the final time it was proposed and withdrawn

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAg...&RIN=1615-AB82

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bieber

Spec

I remember that legislation, there used to be some updates on oh law firm website and the proposed start date on the bill used to get updated every 6 months.

if they actually expect pre-registration and then move the dates accordingly based on that informaion there will be no use with EAD/AP which is kind of weird, so if we assume they issue EAD with pre-reg, also there is no point in setting a date for that pre-reg process so essentially everyone who have approved 140 can register, but if everyone is getting EADs (which is almost like GC) with a approved 140, practially it wouldn't matter when one gets the actual greencard. is there something wrong with that, no but it will be too good to be true to belive

---

bieber,

Good points.

As I read the pre-registration proposal, it didn't allow the I-485 to be submitted. Since both EAD and AP are a direct benefit of a pending I-485, it would not have allowed filing for EAD either.

Something really does need to be done, but I admit I don't have an answer.

One problem with freely allowing EAD and AP with an approved I-140 is that it wouldn't be consistent, or fair to CP applicants.

Those already in the USA and choosing AOS would be able to work with complete freedom and portability. At the same time, those who chose Consular Processing would not.

Eventually, no one would choose CP and since the EAD/AP combination is almost as good as a GC, the wait would not be a disincentive to anyone; it would be de facto unlimited immigration.

Thus, I could see huge numbers of extra I-140 applications/approvals, ever growing backlogs and even greater retrogression.

On the other hand, it would allow people in areas with critical skill shortages, such as nursing to actually fill them immediately, rather than waiting for years for the PD to become Current.

Even seemingly simple and fair solutions aren't always quite as simple or fair as they first appear.

I also don't particularly like the proposal because it is merely a band-aid on a broken system

It requires more than an administrative fix, because the law dictates the use of the dates in the VB.

It seems to me that the effort required would be better spent in bringing about visa recapture to balance the harm done by the increased H1B levels of previous years.

If dependants were not counted against the allocation, the real level of visas would increase to 300k. That level would be sufficient, even within the present system.

As I said, I don't know the solution, other than increasing the overall number of visas available to the primary applicant.

If the supply can't be increased, unpleasant as the thought is, the demand is going to have to be controlled.

One way or another the imbalance between the two cannot continue. It is not fair to everybody concerned.

KD

Thanks. I agree that law is one thing but interpretation is another. People and agencies will always find ways to go around the rules when they cant outright break them!

The rule you mentioned did some harm by proposing that concurrent filing be disallowed altogether. And it showed half promise since it talks about filing a registration packet rather than the entire 485. In order for people to get AC21 485 needs to be pending 6 months and 140 approved. So the rule change it seems would have streamlined USCIS workload without benefitting teh applicants.

I do think that if people make a case and go to court this should be relatively straightforward case. Individual has satisfied all requirements so .. delays in filing 485 shouldn/t jeopardize their otherwise complete application.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kd2008

Q, laws are written pretty broadly - these many visa, these many categories, here are the rules etc. Some govt. agency then interprets them and sets down procedures. The link I posted refers to the Office of Policy and Strategy of the USCIS. This is the body that will see if certain interpretation will be challenged in court, will it stand in court etc. They dropped it - meaning it is their belief that adopting that agenda item will be stretching the written law too far, will probably be challenged in court etc. It is what happens with many govt agencies. They don't want to be seen as being too creative in implementing the law. Moreover, the next elected administration can undo the change. Hence Congressional action is preferred even tough it is very difficult to achieve.

---

Spec

good post, nothing to disagree. I think the brain-drain concept is now hitting the political circles, and I already directly heard from some elite group of people (on TV) that govt should use skilled immigration backlog to boost the housing market, these kind of things if happen they only happen in US. Economy being the biggest concern, If proper push comes, president will not hesistate to implement this to avoid outflow of talent and fix the economy atleast temporarily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bieber

Spec

good post, nothing to disagree. I think the brain-drain concept is now hitting the political circles, and I already directly heard from some elite group of people (on TV) that govt should use skilled immigration backlog to boost the housing market, these kind of things if happen they only happen in US. Economy being the biggest concern, If proper push comes, president will not hesistate to implement this to avoid outflow of talent and fix the economy atleast temporarily.

---

bieber,

Phew!

I was concerned it might be too controversial a post and I know I don't always get the balance right. :(

Thanks for reading it with the intent I meant, which was to highlight an alternative viewpoint; not necessarily my own.

Sometimes we so get wrapped up in our own problems so much that there is a danger we become too blinkered and can't see anybody else's POV. ;)

I was reading the article about how many Citizens and GC holders return home. That is going to become a concern for the US - it should be already. It's another little piece that may jog the powers that be to pay some attention to the plight of the EB people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spectator

I was reading the article about how many Citizens and GC holders return home. That is going to become a concern for the US - it should be already. It's another little piece that may jog the powers that be to pay some attention to the plight of the EB people.

---

That is an interesting article. >50% 'show intent to deny' US of a batch of highly skilled workers and future entrepreneurs. US now after showing meek concerns for the grad students leaving US after their education, has to be now more concerned about a large number of workers leaving with skills and money. They may even start a competing overseas company. Boy does US badly need an immigration reform before people start abandoning I-485s.

As far as the prediction game goes I only wish that DOS would clarify one thing: how do they intend to move dates past July 2007 and USCIS would provide monthly categorywise break down of I140 applications received and approved. That's it and we would be set. Our predictions would be spot on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kd2008

As far as the prediction game goes I only wish that DOS would clarify one thing: how do they intend to move dates past July 2007 and USCIS would provide monthly categorywise break down of I140 applications received and approved. That's it and we would be set. Our predictions would be spot on.

---

kd,

How I wish as well!!

I would add DOS releasing actual numbers of visas allocated and used category-wise on a quarterly basis. I don't want to be too greedy!

Bieber

That talk has been around since the crash of 2008 . One of the Florida senators ( Florida was hit hard by the real estate bubble crash ) was attempting to table a similar bill with the idea of granting more GC's with the hope all those people will buy those houses. I have often heard Senators and other CEO's talk very encouragingly on TV ...but often nothing will get done. H1B's and GC's have been used as the smoke screen for political ends for a very long time. The anti immigration lobby is very powerful on Capitol hill and they know the general populace is very frustated with the lawmakers and company heads. There are two rates of unemployment right now , tech is enjoying a 4% rate while manufacturing and the lower skill jobs have an almost 20% unemployment rate ( U6 not U3) . There is immense anger among the people which has led to the birth of the Tea party and other movements. The CEO's will continue to outsource jobs and they need an powerful smoke screen to be used as an bread crumb for the masses. Also nothing will get done in Washington without employing Lobbyists.

This is the reason the Immigration voice thingy failed to make an impact.Nothing is going to happen just writing to the senators.It is true USA is at a turning point and they are losing a lot of talent right now....if they want to maintain that research edge they should be seriously looking at Immigration reform especially for India and China.

:) But will they do it ...will be totally different story. In fact the proof of the pudding lies with the behaviour of many of the Top CEO's ...often the heads of INTEL,MICROSOFT come together to pass many powerful statements on TV asking congress to grant more H1B's and GC's since they claim they employ a lot of them and they cannot find enough of them. With the money power these companies have they should have been able to buy this legislation. ( Eg: From Monday onwards AT&T and Comcast will be placing slabs on Broadband usage and anyone going above their limit will be charged 15 bucks ....monthly limits top off at 150 GB) So why have these powerful CEO's not managed to get this legislation passed . :) They do not want it to be passed.....it gives them H1 B workers who will do anything to please their masters and also gives them a smoke screen since they will not stop cutting jobs here.


I have been hearing about Bills granting automatic GC's to US educated Master students since 2002....It is 2011 right now and not one of them got passed.

Also 2012 is an election year and nothing major ever gets taken up by congress before an election year untill and unless it is going to give them votes.Also USCIS has to answer to its political masters for the sake of proper funding and will not anger them by any aggressive movement.

I beleive they will move the dates by a few months and will hold back for an aggressive push in 2012 and then retrogress them right back.

Sorry for the pessimism but could not help typing this out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bieber

Spec

good post, nothing to disagree. I think the brain-drain concept is now hitting the political circles, and I already directly heard from some elite group of people (on TV) that govt should use skilled immigration backlog to boost the housing market, these kind of things if happen they only happen in US. Economy being the biggest concern, If proper push comes, president will not hesistate to implement this to avoid outflow of talent and fix the economy atleast temporarily.

---

gurus,

can i be on H1b and skip pay roll run say in July 2011 and Nov 2011 for taking vacation or anything like that? Please let me know...

I think a bill is placed on the senate for granting green card to individuals with a MS or Phd degree from US schools almost every year. Last time, it was 2009 when the senator from Arizona (I am forgetting his name) proposed this bill. This even was published in India newspapers like TimesOfIndia! At that time, I was looking at the past instance/s of this or similar bill (as I was somewhat hopeful that the bill might pass) and saw that similar bill/s had appeared multiple times but they never went beyond a certain point when the Senators will vote and decide the fate of the bill. So, I agree with 'gcseeker' that I don't see this kind of a bill getting through in the Senate in the next 5 years.

I also found the other point in relation to CEOs of big organizations, quite interesting (and I have myself thought on similar lines). The CEOs of tech companies always point out the shortage of skilled labor but I never see them really pushing for any change in immigration. Not fully sure of the reason though!

GCseeker I think your thinking is realistic. Immigration is a super hot topic because the unemployment is so high. The ONLY people who care about immigration are the super rich. Even C level management is reasonably anti-globalization.

So while baby boomers are retiring and there will be a shortage of workers ... the US will quite likely become more anti-immigrant.

One thing for sure ... the opportunities back home are quite enticing. Those nearing their mid-life crisis will be torn because they see their peers becoming executives in Indian companies while this H1B coolie in pursuit of GC stayed project leader or something similar. Those who are relatively young have that window of opportunity IF THEY CHOOSE to embrace it. They can go back and make it big. However its a personal choice. And we should not preach one way or other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gcseeker

Bieber

That talk has been around since the crash of 2008 . One of the Florida senators ( Florida was hit hard by the real estate bubble crash ) was attempting to table a similar bill with the idea of granting more GC's with the hope all those people will buy those houses. I have often heard Senators and other CEO's talk very encouragingly on TV ...but often nothing will get done. H1B's and GC's have been used as the smoke screen for political ends for a very long time. The anti immigration lobby is very powerful on Capitol hill and they know the general populace is very frustated with the lawmakers and company heads. There are two rates of unemployment right now , tech is enjoying a 4% rate while manufacturing and the lower skill jobs have an almost 20% unemployment rate ( U6 not U3) . There is immense anger among the people which has led to the birth of the Tea party and other movements. The CEO's will continue to outsource jobs and they need an powerful smoke screen to be used as an bread crumb for the masses. Also nothing will get done in Washington without employing Lobbyists.

This is the reason the Immigration voice thingy failed to make an impact.Nothing is going to happen just writing to the senators.It is true USA is at a turning point and they are losing a lot of talent right now....if they want to maintain that research edge they should be seriously looking at Immigration reform especially for India and China.

:) But will they do it ...will be totally different story. In fact the proof of the pudding lies with the behaviour of many of the Top CEO's ...often the heads of INTEL,MICROSOFT come together to pass many powerful statements on TV asking congress to grant more H1B's and GC's since they claim they employ a lot of them and they cannot find enough of them. With the money power these companies have they should have been able to buy this legislation. ( Eg: From Monday onwards AT&T and Comcast will be placing slabs on Broadband usage and anyone going above their limit will be charged 15 bucks ....monthly limits top off at 150 GB) So why have these powerful CEO's not managed to get this legislation passed . :) They do not want it to be passed.....it gives them H1 Bee slave workers who will do anything to please their masters and also gives them a smoke screen since they will not stop cutting jobs here.


I have been hearing about Bills granting automatic GC's to US educated Master students since 2002....It is 2011 right now and not one of them got passed.

Also 2012 is an election year and nothing major ever gets taken up by congress before an election year untill and unless it is going to give them votes.Also USCIS has to answer to its political masters for the sake of proper funding and will not anger them by any aggressive movement.

I beleive they will move the dates by a few months and will hold back for an aggressive push in 2012 and then retrogress them right back.

Sorry for the pessimism but could not help typing this out.

---

Hi guys, does anyone want to make an argument that some of the policies are unconstitutional.

By the way, I vehemently disagree with the immigration status slurs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorningSun

Hi guys, does anyone want to make an argument that some of the policies are unconstitutional.

By the way, I vehemently disagree with the immigration status slurs.

---

I second this.
It is what it is, let's get back to stats/number crunching/prediction game.

So far 31 EB2I approvals posted for the month of May 2011 on trackitt!( 29 of them are May/June 2006 and 2 of them porting).

MorningSun

The discussion came about not to state the policies are unconstitutional.USA is well within its rights and constitution to frame its immigration policies any way its want.Just the ground situation and impact of those policies on people's lives was being pointed out.

Also I am sorry you missed the intent of the entire point and thought " H1 Bee slave worker " was slur. We work as hard as Bee's without proper recognition is the intent and it is true with so many restrictions like changing of jobs killing the gc petition etc etc.....situation is very similar . Anywaz I do not wish to divert the topic towards discussing political bills and my response was more to share some thoughts since people will get their hopes up to think those bills will get passed.Just wanted to point that out it might not happen anytime soon.

I will anyhow edit my previous post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorningSun

Hi guys, does anyone want to make an argument that some of the policies are unconstitutional.

By the way, I vehemently disagree with the immigration status slurs.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veni001

So far 31 EB2I approvals posted for the month of May 2011 on trackitt!( 29 of them are May/June 2006 and 2 of them porting).

---

Veni, following is some analysis of EB2-I cases from Trackitt for EB2-I.
Total Number of Cases - 215
Approved - 89, Denied - 2
Approved in May - 38.

So approved previously = 51.
Number of cases available to approve in May = 215 - 51 -2 = 162.

Now 15% do not update the status of their cases after putting them this is based on historical data.
This makes the number of effective cases = 138.

So the approval rate is 38/149 = 27.5%.

Effectively in the first 4 days 27.5% of the cases have been approved.