Printable View
Well, this is my first post in any forum(Visa). I am EB3 Aug 2009 and never got chance to file anything and i am not telling this because i am frustrated well i am already, But after reading all this and i am not that expert in understanding all this quota etc, i am sure about one thing. There is no real algorithm or process that USCIS/ DOS follow. It's just their decision whom to give and whom not to.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Got it. Thank you!Quote:
Originally Posted by kkruna
Hang in there. Several of us are in the same boat. We must wait and see how things unfold between June and September of this year. YTEleven has come up with a wonderful explanation. There is a chance for EB3I inventory build up in 2017 after a decade.Quote:
Originally Posted by taraldesai
I don't get one part... the prediction is for upto 3 months monthly movement thru June...
if spillover is only applied from june (which CO confirmed in comments), then why would there be any movement thru june... wouldn't it just stop here and move in june... why predict upto 3 months? I cant see any scenario where dates would move further without spillover?
You are absolutely right. Both statements - "spillover is only applied from june" and "upto 3 months monthly movement thru June" are contradictory and both cannot be true at the same time. If we see any movement in next bulletin that means they already started applying SO from next bulletin.Quote:
Originally Posted by vishnu
You are absolutely right. Both statements - "spillover is only applied from june" and "upto 3 months monthly movement thru June" are contradictory and both cannot be true at the same time. If we see any movement in next bulletin that means they already started applying SO from next bulletin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Based on the limited available eb row approval data for last 3 months, can you tell if this year will be a better one for eb2i.
Thamk
Dude, that is exactly what the post is about - that EB2I is screwed this year!! Which part of it don't you understand?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zevrap
If I were to understand I would not had asked.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarepathekaIntezar
All I want to know is, will this year eb2i receive 7000 visas?
Well, there is a possibility of that happening. Given the demand analysis that I saw in another forum that one user Chatpata123 did for EB3, if I use the same logic, the EB2ROW demand has been slowing down from May 2015 (possibly because ROW's stopped upgrading from EB3 to EB2, since EB3 also advanced fast last year).Quote:
Originally Posted by Zevrap
But if 7000 visas are issued, you have to note that around 10 - 15% of that will go to CP Cases, which does not reflect in USCIS Inventory. The other imponderable is the porters from EB3. So, if you are using that number to predict if you will get GC, it may not work out.
But you will have a clear picture in July for sure. So just relax till July.
Hi Spec
Do these predictions (which you made early Feb) change significantly with the published inventory?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
In the grand scheme of things - probably not.Quote:
Originally Posted by vishnu
EB2-ROW is a bit higher currently, but EB1 is lower.
The loss of FB visas is a big blow. 11k is a top end estimate based on the data available at the time.
The Inventory was exactly as I expected.
I'd stress again that the EB2-I Inventory has never dropped by the number of actual approvals in a FY, so it doesn't say that the date will move to one that represents that number in the Inventory, plus there have been approvals from October to January (although the number is uncertain).
Thanks spec... So I take that to mean that the 10,000 visas should get us beyond the date that would currently add up to 10k as per the inventory?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
Other way round. The Inventory will reduce less than the number of approvals made.Quote:
Originally Posted by vishnu
For example, in FY2014 (last figures available), actual EB2-I approvals were 23,527. The USCIS Inventory reduced by only 12,276 between October 2013 and October 2014.
The USCIS Inventory for EB2-I usually only drops about 50-60% of actual approvals. It might be higher this year since more porting cases may have been in the Inventory as EB2.
Table V of the DOS Visa Statistics has been published.
You can find a breakdown of the statistics here.
EB1-I received 12,253 visas in FY2015
EB2-I received 7,235 visas in FY2015
EB3-I received 7,026 visas in FY2015
EB4 used their entire allocation.
EB5 used less than their allocation, despite EB5-China being retrogressed.
EB1 used more than their allocation by using the spare EB5 visas.
There was no Fall Down from EB1 - all the SO came from within EB2.
In FB, India exceeded the 7% limit. 65% of approvals were in FB4 and 87% of approvals were in FB3 & FB4.
Thanks Spec. I was going over the totals and it looks like EB2 got 4.5k visas extra and EB3 got 4.5k less. I thought the totals cannot exceed 40k. Are those all porting numbers from EB3I that were counted against EB2I and not EB3I? That seems to be the only explanation for the grand totals. What do you think?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
The total allocation for EB in FY2015 was 144,796 so 28.6% is 41,412.Quote:
Originally Posted by EB3Iwaiting
EB2 can then also receive any spillover from EB4, EB5 and EB1. There's also the question of underuse in FB allowing more use in EB - it's a bit complicated.
Actual visas issued was 143,955 which is 841 less than the allocation - a wastage of 0.6% which is not bad (EB has been overallocated for the last 2 years). EB3 wastage of nearly 4k was very disappointing, so to a certain extent EB2 did receive more at the expense of EB3.
So, EB3Is not only get hosed by the Spillover law and CP cases from P but now overall EB3 quota getting decreased at the expense of EB2 quota getting increased. So, porting had no positive effect on EB3I. EB3Is just cannot catch a break.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
That's not exactly what Spec said. S/He is just trying to put an explanation on something that really has no explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by EB3Iwaiting
What DoS did here is bending if not breaking the visa allocation rules.
Thanks Q. I understand that Spec is simply trying to make sense as to what happened. But EB3 getting 4k less GCs should never happen specially since EB3I is the most backlogged EB category of all. EB2I should not get more than 41412 and EB3I should not get less than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
It clearly is unfair towards EB3 that they received less than the full quota. Whereas EB2 received more than what was legally possible. EB2 can receive more than just their own quota because EB4/5/1 can give EB2 some extra visas. But this year as you can see they received 3100 more (from godknowswhere) when they were only supposed to receive 2500 (what spec called "technical spillover).Quote:
Originally Posted by EB3Iwaiting
Again - this is wholly unfair - and should be challenged by EB3-I folks.
Thanks a ton to Spec who has published an outstanding summary of table V from DOS 2015 report.
I've also updated this post which shows historic allocations / SO from FY2008 to date.
Now I understand why DHS moved the cut off date to Dec 22 2004 in Sept 2015 visa bulletin for EB3 I. It was USCIS who messed up EB3 processing again. No wonder Eb3 I is stuck forever. Hope they make up for it this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
who, where and how do we challenge this Q..the Visagate lawsuit is pending despite all the hoopla and not to mention the resources it has...Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
anuprab this is the fight of backlogged candidates particularly from India. I really don't care about legal basis or not but basically people are discriminated based on their country of origin and that should be challenged. All other issues like DoS wasting visas etc are peripheral.Quote:
Originally Posted by anuprab
People should go and fight it in American courts. You will be surprised how much you will be heard. But the backlogged folks must realize it is their fight. Nobody else is going to fight it for them.
Chinese EB3 applicants have already gone down this route with a very similar claim and lost. The case was Li versus Kerry and spanned 2010 to 2013.Quote:
Originally Posted by anuprab
Here's the appeal judgement.
The whole idea of country quota is discriminatory. Challenge that as point #1.
#2 - It is such a shame for bright talented folks (or anybody) to be used as slaves in the American companies. H1B is slavery. GC backlogs facilitate slavery.
Backlogged candidates must understand that path to victory will go through failures. A lot of you have spent enough time that you should have learnt about American values of freedom and justice and the right to pursue happiness.
In the Silva v. Bell case, the federal government agreed with plaintiffs that “relief, in the form of a program to recapture and reissue the wrongfully issued visa numbers, is appropriate.” Visas were wrongfully issued in another category and court asked the agency to correct the mistake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
http://openjurist.org/605/f2d/978
In Silva, the court ordered the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to recapture immigrant visa numbers that were misallocated; the agency had erred by counting the set-aside immigrant visa numbers of Cuban refugees against the visa quota for all nationals of the Western Hemisphere between 1968 and 1976. Additionally, in Galvez, the court found that the aggrieved plaintiffs had been denied LPR status for which they were eligible and ordered the U.S. Secretary of State to issue visa numbers that would be charged against the remaining visa number allotment from the prior year. According to the Galvez court, the “INS has a statutory obligation to issue visas to qualified applicants to the full extent of the annual quota limits established by Congress.”
8 U.S.C. 1156 - Unused immigrant visas
"If an immigrant having an immigrant visa is denied admission to the United States and removed, or does not apply for admission before the expiration of the validity of his visa, or if an alien having an immigrant visa issued to him as a preference immigrant is found not to be a preference immigrant, an immigrant visa or a preference immigrant visa, as the case may be, may be issued in lieu thereof to another qualified alien."
Congress did not specify what would happen if a visa is wasted by the agency's inefficiency, probably because Congress did not expect any visas to go wasted, specially when there is enough demand. Therefore, agency inefficiency and apathy should not be allowed to defeat legislative intent. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happens.
I agree with challenging the country quotas on the grounds that they are discriminatory. But I don't know if that would be a valid legal argument. Does anyone know? I've posted on multiple legal blogs asking the same question but no one has ever responded.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
EDIT: Also, the decision reached in the Galvez case (which is now very old) contradicts the Kerry case as it pertains to recapture. In the Kerry case, the courts said that there is no authority by which USCIS can recapture visas. (Though maybe there is such authority with DoS?)
Sorry to state the obvious .. but nobody else is going to do it for you and other backlogged folks. This can not be a pass time activity. This will require serious commitment. My experience is that people tend to complain about backlogs and how their life is miserable etc but at the end of the day do not have the courage to do anything about it. That's why we have dumb organization asking donations and probably receiving it for making a show about advocacy. Advocacy is cosmetics if at all. Immigration is a much more strategic issue for DoS than you think. USCIS are just paper pushers. It's the DoS that has interest in keeping country quota not USCIS. DoS is not Evil. They have their legitimate objectives but the backlogged community must stand up and highlight the gross injustice. Anyway ... my last on this topic. I already got my GC long time back. I am just highlighting the need to do something beyond advocacy. Take my advice for what it's worth :)Quote:
Originally Posted by abcx13
In the L****s Kerry case, the judges at various levels rejected the Silva analogy for what seem fairly clear reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by EB3Iwaiting
In Silva, the Cuban refugees were originally awarded visas from a preference category allocation. Subsequently, it was determined that they were not preference immigrants.
The law, under INA 206 (8 USC 1156), specifically deals with this situation and those visas that were actually issued erroneously to non preference immigrants may be reissued to preference immigrants.
The EB3 situation is not the same. It involves the non issuance of visas up to the full allocation and possibly the erroneous issuance of visas to a different preference category. Neither case is dealt with under INA 206, nor is there any other law that allows issuance of visas up to the statutory limit after the event, or recapture of previous visas to do so.
In fact, if EB3 had extra visas issued up to their limit, then to stay within the overall FY2015 EB limit, some EB2 approvals might have to be revoked.
I've spoken about the raw deal EB3 has been getting for years - EB3-ROW would have been current some time ago and EB3-I would have benefited from fall across within EB3 for much longer. I think the only viable solution within the existing constraints is to issue all EB3 visas by no later than the end of August and leave September purely to deal with consular returns. That would mean moving the EB3-I dates forward slightly earlier than CO has been prepared to do so up to date - something most people think should be done anyway.
This is my last on the subject.
I am no expert in this but from what I understood this cannot be challenged in the court. I think there is something in the law that only congress can do something.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
I was also going through the manual for I-485 few days back and I saw a statement that no discrimination based on country of origin will be done and below that they have the numerical limitation explained. I think they have worded it such that proving discrimination is difficult.
Again I may be wrong
Well, I'm not a lawyer and don't intend to quit my day job, hence why I was asking other people! Anyway, I think the statute is clearly discriminatory but it's probably legal since it's survived for so long...and arguably it's not discriminatory since each country gets the same allocation.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Pappu and the others there have gone crazy. The comments from Siskind and Mehta clearly support our position...what a bunch of childish idiots. Oh, and their brief had a number of typos and poor grammar.
I am not sure if something is non-discriminatory since it survived for a long time. The mere bucketing of people by country of origin should make it discriminatory. Imagine a law that says for a certain job category we will interview 2 whites and 2 blacks. Because we interviewed equal number of whites and blacks it is non-discriminatory. To make it non-discriminatory the broad brush says equal opportunity for all races. If you extrapolate this to the employment based immigration (say H1B for simplicity) is non-discriminatory because apparently the said job was open to person of every race (assuming legal immigrant) and a person from every origin. Where it becomes tricky is the EB based green card. Can it be argued that Green Card is a benefit that should be allowed to all legal immigrants who meet a certain pre-requisite (like a global priority date cut-off) and because the benefit should be distributed to all races that are eligible, it must be equitable and hence the country cap must be eliminated. On this front the immigration lawyers will not be of help is my opinion as they would rather milk this cash-cow of backlog perpetually.Quote:
Originally Posted by abcx13
Several of us on this forum looked into this several months back and evaluated whether there is any merit in challenging the per-country-limits in court.Quote:
Originally Posted by vyruss
The obstacle we found was what is called 'plenary powers of congress', and the 'plenary power doctrine'. The short answer is that we could try to challenge the per-country limits as discriminatory in court, but the courts could very well say that it is not in their power to decide since 'immigration law' in its entirety comes under plenary powers of congress.
The folks who wrote the constitution were idealists, but they were also biased in their own way. It is my understanding that they gave plenary powers to congress to decide on immigration matters precisely because they wanted those 'inside the country' to decide who gets to stay and who gets to not stay.
AND.. if the popularity of Trump is any indication....there is no doubt that there is wide spread anti-immigrant sentiment in this country, and congress is merely reflecting that sentiment.
MOTION TO DISMISS filed. Will this have a positive impact on the filing date movement for INDIA and other countries
https://t.co/HANQQzEktO
mechanic,Quote:
Originally Posted by mechanical13
That was my exact thought process when I considered this. Country quota is discriminatory and against constitution's spirit, but INA legalized it. Though congress has 'plenary powers' , it doesn't mean that they can act against the constitution or its intend. That is where supreme court has to make a decision. Unless this issue is brought up before supreme court, we will never know whether country cap can be challenged. One of supreme courts role is to validate congress laws against constitution.
Thanks GCQ and mechanic.Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
I think backlogged candidates must bring this issue serious visibility and let the courts ponder over this topic of how stupid and discriminatory the quotas are. Forget the plenary powers and all other legal jargon. Everybody knows in their heart that such kind of quotas are discriminatory.
This country is not run by idiots. They don't follow the law to the letter. There is a great tradition of following the law in its spirit too. So make an effort. Take small steps. But first organize.
The April 2016 VB has been published https://travel.state.gov/content/vis...pril-2016.html
EB2-I moves to 08NOV08 (3 weeks)
EB3-I moves to 08AUG04 (3 weeks)
As per Q blog http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showth...2012-vs-FY2011
EB2ROW in 2015 got approx 29K visas , not sure how that is possible I thought the whole reason why EB2I did not move much was because there was a surge in eb2row demand 29K for eb2row seems to suggest approx 6K SO for Eb2I unless I am missing smomething .... Spec pls explain