Printable View
Country cap removal effective from FY 2015Quote:
Originally Posted by rupen86
120k from merit track 1 available from first fiscal year after bill enactment date.
Recapture to be effective from FY 2015.
Exempting certain categories from Quota like (Dependents, some STEM graduates, EB1 etc). It is not clear when this will be effective.
It is unfortunate that most of the provisions are not scheduled to take effect immediately.
Does anyone have thoughts on this anomaly in the text?
In the section that talks about EXCEPTION FROM LABOR CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT FOR STEM IMMIGRANTS on page 311, it says:
Subparagraph (A) refers to 212(a)(5)(A)Quote:
(1) EXCEPTION FROM LABOR CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT FOR STEM IMMIGRANTS.—
Section 212(a)(5)(D) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(5)(D)) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(D) APPLICATION OF GROUNDS.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in clause (ii), the grounds for inadmissibility of aliens under subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall apply to immigrants seeking admission or adjustment of status under paragraph (2) or (3) of section 203(b).
‘‘(ii) SPECIAL RULE FOR STEM IMMIGRANTS.—
The grounds for inadmissibility of aliens under subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an immigrant seeking admission or adjustment of status under paragraph (2)(A)(ii) of section 203(b).’’.
Paragraph (2)(A)(ii) of section 203(b) neither exists currently nor is created as part of this Bill (page 303-304), so it appears to be a nonsense sentence, particularly as, in the Bill, (2)(A) of section 203(b) is designated for EB2 cases other than the "special" US STEM Advanced Degree. (2)(B) ADVANCED DEGREES IN A STEM FIELD deals with those. (2)(B)(ii) deals with the definition of a "Doctoral Institution".Quote:
(A) Labor certification.-
(i) In general.-Any alien who seeks to enter the United States for the purpose of performing skilled or unskilled labor is inadmissible, unless the Secretary of Labor has determined and certified to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General that-
etc
As written, I cannot fathom who is actually exempted from needing to go through the PERM process.
Ron Gotcher commented on this anomaly. The thought is they were trying to reference back to the new STEM category.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
justvisiting,Quote:
Originally Posted by justvisiting
That's my thought too, but the text doesn't actually say that. Also, the exact definition of that new STEM category is also as clear as mud. I wonder whether
should actually sayQuote:
‘‘(I) has earned a graduate degree at the level of master’s or higher in a field of science, technology, engineering, or mathematics from an accredited United States institution of higher education
Then defining a Doctoral Institution of Higher Education in the same section [203(b)(2)(B)(ii)] makes sense.Quote:
‘‘(I) has earned a graduate degree at the level of master’s or higher in a field of science, technology, engineering, or mathematics from an accredited United States doctoral institution of higher education
More questions than answers when we get down to the fine detail.
i was reading the section on family visas and i have a few questions about that. i would really appreciate any help from the experts in this forum. i know most of you guys are interested in EB visas but but for those who can help i thank you in advance.
1) in the bill and it seems kind of weird to me that the new allocation of the visas will be 35% for F-1 ( Adult sons and daughter of U.S citizens) and 40% for F-2 (Adult sons and daughters and LPRs). why is it that adult sons and daughters of LPRs will get more visas than adult sons and daughters of U.S citizens?
2) since the bill mentions that any the changes in the visa allocation will take effect 18 months after the enactment of the bill, should we expect the visa bulletin to move at the same current rate for 18 months after the bill's enactment until the new allocations takes place? or will things like visa recapture and other adjustments take effect before that?
3) I've read somewhere that under the new bill, non-immigrant V-Visa will be expended to include adult sons and daughters of U.S citizens and LPRs. this visa will allow those who have been waiting in line for 3+ years to live and work in the U.S while waiting for their priority dates to become current. can anybody confirm that?
keep on_trying,Quote:
Originally Posted by keep on_trying
Welcome to the forum.
Here's my understanding.
1) In the first FY after enactment, tha FB % are as follows:
FB1 - 20% - Unmarried Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens
FB2(B) - 20% - Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent Residents
FB3 - 20% - Married Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens
FB4 - 40% - Brothers and Sisters of Adult U.S. Citizens
In the first FY after 18 months have elapsed since enactment, it changes to:
FB1A - 35% - Unmarried Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens
FB1B - 25% - Married Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens under 31
FB2 - 40% - Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent Residents
I guess it does look a bit odd to have the US Citizen % lower than the LPR one for Unmarried Sons and Daughters. In time, after enactment, this would actually give a better chance of the Son or Daughter coming to the USA before the Parent had waited the requisite time to become Naturalized.
2) Since initially, there are the same number of visas available to fewer Categories, then dates would move more quickly.
The 3 figures are Now: After Enactment: 18 months after enactment
FB1/FB1A - 23,400 ---> 45,200 ---> 56,350
FB2B/FB2 - 26,266 ---> 45,200 ---> 64,400
FB3/FB1B - 23,400 ---> 45,200 ---> 40,250
There are also some measures, using the Merit Based visas, to accelerate clearing the existing FB backlog over time, as well as recapture of "wasted visas".
3) I haven't really looked at the V visa. From a quick look, it applies to:
(i) Subject to section 214(q)(1) and section 212(a)(4), an alien who is the beneficiary of an approved petition under section 25 203(a) as—
(I) the unmarried son or unmarried daughter of a citizen of the United States;
(II) the unmarried son or unmarried daughter of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence; or
(III) the married son or married daughter of a citizen of the United States and who is under 31 years of age; or
(ii) subject to section 214(q)(2), an alien who is—
(I) the sibling of a citizen of the United States; or
(II) the married son or married daughter of a citizen of the United States and who is over 31 years of age.
Group (i) will be employment authorized and can stay until their Immigrant Visa or Adjustment of Status application is denied. They then have 30 days to leave.
Group (ii) have no employment authorization and can only spend 60 days per FY in V status.
The requirement that the I-130 is 3 years old appears to have been removed.
The V visa is Section 2308 starting on page 313 of the CIR Bill.
I can't find the post now, but I think someone asked how many visas this might be.
That is not as simple as it sounds.
For those that don't know, currently any unused EB visas in a FY are allocated to FB the next FY and
any unused FB visas in a FY are allocated to EB the next FY.
For FB, they don't benefit from this, since the number of IR approvals generally means the calculation results in a figure less than 226,000 and it defaults to the minimum 226,00 allowed.
EB can always benefit from spare FB visas.
So, although visas may be wasted in EB, they have the chance to get them back if FB approvals are lower than their allocation.
a) Going back to 1992, 493.4k EB visas appear to have been wasted.
b) 180k of those have already been recaptured in previous legislation (130 + 50). You could say that 313.4k remain to be recaptured.
However, during that time, FB has also given EB a further 279.9k visas.
So really, the net number to be recaptured for EB is only 33.5k.
Any more than that is really the ultimate con trick, as the antis already know.
In the past, when recapturing visas, Congress has not taken numbers received from FB into account, and I doubt they will this time either.
Disclaimer :- It is extremely difficult to find information for years before FY2000, so there may be some "wiggle room" if my understanding of the numbers available and used in those years is faulty.
From FY1999 onwards, EB has actually received 148k more visas than were wasted, after the 180k previous recapture is factored in.
Ron has previously claimed that there are more than 300k visas to be recaptured. If what you are saying is right and there are only 33k left to be recaptured, it would be real disappointment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
what would be nice (and I'm not volunteering to do this :) ), is a timeline of when things "go live" and a yr by yr macro level view of numbers available. For eg, assuming it passes this fiscal year
2014
- EB will have 140K + 120K of which EB1 is exempt, EB2IC gets x and EB2ROW gets y, EB3 gets z
- FB gets xxxx and 1/7th backlog gets cleared
2015
- EB will have (140K + 120K + visa recapture) of which ......
I can't believe theres 300K+ to be recaptured since 1992. That's 15K each year on average. In the last 5 or so years since I've been paying attention, hardly any visas seem to have been wasted (although I don't have actual numbers). That would mean that the 90s and early 2000s lost a lot of visas.Quote:
Originally Posted by rupen86
Spec, you are right. But theway the bill is written leaves a lot of wiggle room:
Quote:
B) FISCAL YEAR 2015- For fiscal year 2015, the worldwide level of employment-based immigrants under this subsection is equal to the sum of--
`(i) 140,000;
`(ii) the number computed under paragraph (2); and
`(iii) the number computed under paragraph (3).
Does "such fiscal years" mean during the sum of those fiscal years OR, does it mean during each fiscal year? If it's the latter, the you could "double recapture"Quote:
`(3) UNUSED VISAS- The number computed under this paragraph is the difference, if any, between--
`(A) the sum of the worldwide levels established under paragraph (1) for fiscal years 1992 through and including 2013; and
`(B) the number of visas actually issued under section 203(b) during such fiscal years.'.
vizcard,Quote:
Originally Posted by vizcard
From FY2007 onwards, only a net 126 visas have been wasted overall in EB.
During that time, EB has received (and used) 64.3k unused FB visas (including the 18k this year).
rupen,Quote:
Originally Posted by rupen86
I'm only saying that would be the case if what actually happens in the current system were taken into account.
Congress has no history of calculating recapture figures that way, so I think an actual figure of 300k is far more likely, even though it is double counting.
thank you so much for the explanation. i couldn't have had asked for a better answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
currently, only spouses and children of LPRs can benefit from a v-visa. there's a requirement for the v-visa that the I-130 application be filed on or before December 21, 2000. according to USCIS website, no visas are being issued since currently there are no I-130 applications pending under the F2A Category for that long . if they expand the categories that could benefit from visa but do not remove this requirement, then only people from Mexico and the Philippines will benefit from it since these are the only two countries with applications pending from before the December 21,2000 required date.
spec,
in the bill it says that they will raise per country limit for family visas from 7% to 15%. i know that this predominantly benefits the countries with the highest number of applications and longest backlog, china, Mexico and the Philippines to be specific. but do you how that affect countries other than china, Mexico, and Philippines? do you think that any increase in the numbers of visas will be offset ( if not demolished) by this increase in per country limit for people who are from the rest of the world?
i have a feeling that raising the per country limit will speed things significantly for people from china, Mexico and Philippines while others have to wait for the same periods if not longer just to bring everyone to the same level.
keep on_trying,Quote:
Originally Posted by keep on_trying
As written, that requirement is removed in the text of the Bill.
my understanding was that the new bill only expands the categories that can benefit from this visa, but refers to the current law for other eligibility requirements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
keep on_trying,Quote:
Originally Posted by keep on_trying
Not as far as I read it.
The text on pages 313-314 replaces the existing text regarding the V visa.
The current
becomesQuote:
(V) subject to section 214(q), an alien who is the beneficiary (including a child of the principal alien, if eligible to receive a visa under section 203(d) of a petition to accord a status under section 203(a)(2)(A) that was filed with the Attorney General under section 204 on or before the date of the enactment of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act, if--
(i) such petition has been pending for 3 years or more; or
(ii) such petition has been approved, 3 years or more have elapsed since such filing date, and--
(I) an immigrant visa is not immediately available to the alien because of a waiting list of applicants for visas under section 203(a)(2)(A) ; or
(II) the alien's application for an immigrant visa, or the alien's application for adjustment of status under section 245 , pursuant to the approval of such petition, remains pending.
Thus, it removes reference to being at least 3 years old and being prior to the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act (LIFE Act of 2000).Quote:
(V)(i) subject to section 214(q)(1) and section 212(a)(4), an alien who is the beneficiary of an approved petition under section 203(a) as—
(I) the unmarried son or unmarried daughter of a citizen of the United States;
(II) the unmarried son or unmarried daughter of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence; or
(III) the married son or married daughter of a citizen of the United States and who is under 31 years of age; or
(ii) subject to section 214(q)(2), an alien who is—
(I) the sibling of a citizen of the United States; or
(II) the married son or married daughter of a citizen of the United States 15 and who is over 31 years of age.
December 21, 2000 is the date the LIFE Act was enacted into law when President Bill Cinton signed it. Source: this USCIS page and better still, see this (then INS) Factsheet. It was the LIFE Act that created the V visa originally.
Hi Spectator,
According to the testimony given by Brad Smith, SVP of Microsoft, the un-used visa numbers in the employment category was 325,000 (please see his speech extract given below, published by Oh Law Firm). Does this number relate to the period from 1993 to 2013? If the CIR Bill gets passed, what will be the impact on EB2/EB3 priority dates effective October 1, 2014 ?
"I also applaud the provision of the bill that recaptures employment-based green cards that were previously authorized but never used. According to data provided by the Department of State to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman and published in the Ombudsman’s 2010 Annual Report, there were approximately 325,000 employment-based immigrant visa numbers that Congress authorized in previous years but that remain unused."
As I have explained in a recent post, that number is somewhat "smoke and mirrors", because EB has received most of that number back from FB already.Quote:
Originally Posted by vgraj1
However, if that number was recaptured (as seems likely), everybody would be Current, considering the other provisions, and it would remain so for some time.
300k in the old language represents at least 600k after the Bill, since dependents would no longer count against numerical limitations under the Bill as well.
Thanks Spectator. If the CIR Bill does pass through, a decade-old long wait will end for many in FY 2015. Let's keep fingers crossed!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
Schumer, Durbin, Flake and Graham amendment:
http://www.aila.org/content/fileview...&linkid=261052
Lot's of changes to the STEM provisions, mostly clarifying that they are numerically exempt and the 5 year rule. Haven't looked at changes to the H-1B stuff.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=44286 - New Summary from AILA. Pretty good.Quote:
Originally Posted by justvisiting
I just see the amendment, no summary?Quote:
Originally Posted by justvisiting
Sorry, wrong link!Quote:
Originally Posted by abcx13
Summary:
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=44283
if CIR passes, can anyone who is staying since 2011 and employed before age 60 or un-employed at age 65 at time of application
, can apply for RPI?
It appears that RPI is 6 year residenecy permit without Visa requirement for travel, hence no I-94?
Why any one would do H1B extension??
Quote:
Originally Posted by justvisiting
Other than exempting US STEM degree holder, is there anything else for us ?Quote:
Originally Posted by justvisiting
Please see the first posts in the thread. Overall, there is a huge increase in available visas for EB-2 and EB-3.Quote:
Originally Posted by rupen86
I was referring to the amendments.Quote:
Originally Posted by justvisiting
What happens on May 9th ?
Is it the committee mark up or the actual vote? If its the former, when is the actual vote?
I want to see the CBO cost figures that is generally calculated after committee passage.
To Viz
The deliberations on the amendments start on the 9th and will likely take about 3-4 weeks to complete.You can follow the amendments filed at this link
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/legi...amendments.cfm
Although the list seems very limited-one should expect dozens of amendments to be filed by the 5PM deadline today. Again the Senators have to carefully weigh the chances of amendments in the Committee versus the entire Senate Floor as the Senate Judiciary Committee is dominated by Democrats and they may think there is a better chance in the entire chamber.Numerous frivolous amendments will also be filed in an attempt to slow down the process.Each amendment will be considered separately and discussed before a vote is taken on every one of them.The final package is decided after all the amendments are done and a simple majority is all that is necessary to report to the Senate Floor.
As we have said before,the Senate is the easier chamber and the following article features that-
http://washingtonexaminer.com/byron-...rticle/2528981
Thanks! This was very helpful. The process is mind numbingly slow but it seems to be thorough. I'd rather it take time and be good enough to pass (in both chambers) rather than the alternative.Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
To viz
If you are having a slow day at work this might make interesting reading for you.It describes in detail the amendment process in Committee and afterwards
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/98-853.pdf
Also this was in my twitter feed
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/07/us...=politics&_r=0
Never a slow day at work but I do keep an IE window permanently open for this forum. Those links will probably be bedtime reading for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
The markup starts on the 9th. They will start the proces sof dicussing and voting amendments. The final committee vote wil take place whenever they get through all the amendments.Quote:
Originally Posted by vizcard
C&P a tweet I just got
"Sen. Orrin Hatch is filing 24(!) amendments to the gang of 8 immigration bill. Taking DNA for legal provisional status applicants is one..."
http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings...tion-act-s-744
There was a Homeland Security Senate COmmittee hearing today. I'm not sure if anyone has any more detail on how this went and what the outcomes were.
None of the "troublemakers" have proposed amendments - Grassley, Sessions or Cruz. Does that mean they are going to drop bombs during the meetings? or does it mean that they are just going to vote "no" no matter what comes out.Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968
To vizcard
They will surely file amendments-please wait for the official update on that website.A few more updated tweets
"Amendment #s so far for G o 8: Lee ~ 30, Hatch - 24, Hirono - 4, Leahy - 1. Betting the total will double in the next 50 minutes.
"Sessions- Would cap # of foreign workers granted admission to the country, & immigrants granted legal status, at approximately 30 million over a decade"
"Leahy officially filed the same-sex couple amendment to the immigration bill. (He said he would, but still, get ready for some drama)
"Another Leahy amendment would let immigrants who register as provisional immigrants to pay fines in installments rather than all upfront.
77 amendments by Grassley just added :(Quote:
Originally Posted by vizcard