Printable View
April VB is out: https://travel.state.gov/content/vis...pril-2017.html
EB2I moved 3 weeks - 22ND JUNE 08
EB3I moved 2 days - 24th March 05
Historic day for EB3I! I have never seen movement by days. Its either no movement or 1 week movement. I guess CO did it cos end of March is densely populated.
haha, i dont know to laugh or cry about this..but seriously wtf. he could have kept it at March 22 for another decade and no one waiting in this category would have raised an eyelid! why 2 days??Quote:
Originally Posted by EB3Iwaiting
As has been mentioned before, over 2/3 of March 2005 EB3-I cases are concentrated in the period March 22 to March 31.Quote:
Originally Posted by anuprab
The 2 days covered in the movement (March 22 and March 23 2005) probably contain between 350-400 cases (likely around 17% of all March 2005 cases). That's more than a week of previous movement in March 2005 contained.
The 2 days after that are the most congested. March 24 and March 25 probably contain around 1,000 cases between them (about 46% of March 2005).
It's quite possible the next movement could be only one day, unless it happens at a time when SO can cover the movement.
PS Although it has happened a very, very, very long time ago, this is the first time I have seen a movement to a date that was not either 1, 8, 15 or 22 in the month. I believe the above figures suggest why it has happened.
In the April visa bulletin - EB3 China final action date is ahead of filing date. Why were the Filing dates not moved with the Final Action date?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
Shouldn't DOS move the filing date 3 to 6 months in advance of the final action date catching up to complete the pre-adjudication process (the very intent of the dual chart visa bulletin system) ? Or is it a rule that filing dates would only move once a year at the beginning of the fiscal year?
What happens for EB3 India if we're to get some spillover this summer? If dates do move past march 2005 in summer will we see similar to China where the final action date cross the filing date of 01 JUL 05?
Shouldn't the filing date be moved prior ?
In the April visa bulletin - EB3 China final action date is ahead of filing date. Why were the Filing dates not moved with the Final Action date?
Shouldn't DOS move the filing date 3 to 6 months in advance of the final action date catching up to complete the pre-adjudication process (the very intent of the dual chart visa bulletin system) ? Or is it a rule that filing dates would only move once a year at the beginning of the fiscal year?
What happens for EB3 India if we're to get some spillover this summer? If dates do move past march 2005 in summer will we see similar to China where the final action date cross the filing date of 01 JUL 05?
Shouldn't the filing date be moved prior ?
Thanks Spec and I understand that. But then if there are so many cases around these dates, why aren't mass RFEs being issued? I am seeing some flurry of activity om trackitt for RFEs..Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
Does anybody have a link or a guide on what to fill in the boxes on the i-9 for reverification? The drop downs are kind of confusing. Appreciate any guidance that the community can offer.Quote:
Originally Posted by imdeng
FY2016-EB Visa Approvals
- Country --- EB1 ----- EB2 ----- EB3 ----- EB4 ---- EB5 ---- Total
CHINA ----- 6,711 --- 2,837 --- 2,815 ----- 107 -- 7,516 --- 19,986
INDIA ---- 10,985 --- 3,930 --- 4,617 ----- 720 ---- 149 --- 20,401
MEXICO ---- 1,720 --- 1,449 --- 2,058 ----- 765 ----- 57 ---- 6,049
PHIL. ------- 173 --- 1,985 --- 6,579 ----- 164 ----- 16 ---- 8,917
ROW ------ 24,134 -- 28,910 -- 21,471 --- 8,273 -- 2,209 --- 84,997
TOTAL ---- 43,723 -- 39,111 -- 37,540 -- 10,029 -- 9,947 -- 140,350
S. KOREA -- 1,547 --- 5,157 --- 6,153 ----- 514 -----260 --- 13,631
More detail at http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showth...8279#post58279
Original Data - https://travel.state.gov/content/dam...ort-TableV.pdf
Thank you very much Spec.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
I am having a complete melt down looking at EB3 allocation. Will this atrocity being committed by USCIS ever end?
At least EB 3 I would have received 2000 more visas and the current date would have been past 2005 March if they did not over allocate EB1 India. I am completely hopeless. USCIS will never learn form its past mistakes.
Spec - do you foresee South Korea getting a PD anytime soon? They should be close enough to the 7% limit.
I am amazed that right now EB1/2/3 demand from China might be lower than that from S.Korea.
What they are doing to EB3I is nothing short of shocking! 3K more visas that the category deserved would have gone a very long way in helping people waiting for a long long time.
It is an atrocity. Why even have limits if you are going to not stick to it at all. A couple hundred deviation would make some sense but 3K is not an oversight - it a deliberate attempt at making sure EB1 stays C at the cost of EB3I people waiting for ages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amulchandra
Amul
These are not mistakes. These are conscious decisions and choices made.
So there is no question of learning from it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amulchandra
imdeng,Quote:
Originally Posted by imdeng
No.
Under the system where the per Country limit is calculated over the sum of FB and EB, South Korea don't even remotely approach it.
The 7% limit in FY2016 was determined to be 25,644 (see September 2016 VB).
South Korea used 1,250 FB visas and 13,631 EB visas for a total of 14,881 preference visas. They could have used an additional 10,763 visa before reaching the overall 7% limit.
imdeng,Quote:
Originally Posted by imdeng
I agree that the overshoot of the EB1 allocation is unforgivable.
EB1-China and EB1-India were retrogressed for the last 2 months of FY2016. Trackitt suggests visas stopped being allocated nearly a month before that.
Whatever the case, it was clearly far too late and retrogression for China and India in EB1 should have started at least 4 months before the end of the FY. Despite EB1-WW having demand under their allocation, once the overall EB1 limit was reached, CO should have retrogressed the entire category.
It wasn't rocket science. At no point in the FY was there any prospect of SO to EB1 from EB4 or EB5.
It makes it even odder that CO said in the March VB that a COD for EB1-IC may not be necessary until August 2017. From the (scant) evidence available, there is no compelling reason to believe that demand has dropped significantly from last year (or at all).
I am getting very frustrated and restless with July 2006 EB3 I PD. Hoping to see the light at end of the tunnel in the next 10-12 months. This never ending inefficiency in visa allocation by USCIS adds to the long drawn battle and makes it more stressful. Can we write to ombudsman and get an explanation for this?Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Can you please elaborate - why would they do this ? Favor EB1C, and be opposed to EB3C ?
The only reason I can think of is the EB1 WITCH lobbying heavily for EB1.
Can this fraud not be exposed somehow ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Can you please elaborate why they would do this ? Favor EB1 and act against EB3C ?
The only reason that I can think of is the EB1 lobby playing behind the scenes.
Can we not bring up this point against them somehow ?
Unless we do something about it, nothing is going to change. CO continues to marginalize EB3-I. It is high time he is kicked out of his office for his incompetence ! Blame ourselves for not doing anything about it !Quote:
Originally Posted by amulchandra
Did the CO not change with the new Trump administration ?Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
We can only speculate why they do it. But the reason these are not mistakes are 1) They happen time and again. 2) Mistakes imply incompetence. Why would you assume incompetence when on the whole USA is a pretty well run country.
As per DoS' motivations - it is possible that outsourcing companies and their clients have a larger interest in pushing for EB1-C than EB2/3 simply because the EB2/3 are individuals whereas EB1-C particularly is a manager managing teams of people that are driving economic benefit for American companies. EB2/3 on the other hand is taking away a local job right here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newyorker123
Experts, could you briefly explain the over allocation to EB1-I and under allocation to EB3-I. I would like to draft a letter to CO and lawmakers.
Does Philippines allocation 6579 immigrant visas in EB3 (Table V) inclusive of the data reported in Table VI - 5153? Just want to clarify whether Philippines received a total of 6579 visa in the EB3 category or 11732 visas in 2016?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
Yes, the 5,153 is included in the 6,579.Quote:
Originally Posted by maverick23
Table VI shows visas issued a Consulates only (CP) : Preference Immigrant Visas Issued (by Foreign State of Chargeability): Fiscal Year 2016
Table V shows AOS approvals and visa issued via CP : Immigrant Visas Issued and Adjustments of Status Subject to Numerical Limitations (by Foreign State of Chargeability):
Fiscal Year 2016
In FY 2015, EB2I was over allocated and some 3K GCs were under allocated to EB3I. In FY 2016, the same thing happened with EB1 being over allocated and EB3I missing out on some 2.5KGCs. Even EB2 got some 900 GCs less. In the EB3I category, where people have been waiting for more than a decade, that's a loss of 5.5K GCs over 2 years. Pushes back the wait time by another 2 years if simply going by annual quota.
There is no doubt that there is huge bias and discrimination going on. Like Spec said, there was no way that EB1 was getting any SO so CO should have immediately stopped issuing visas to EB1 once their 40k was allocated. But in order to keep EB1ROW C, he over allocated them and EB2I to some extend and of course, EB3Is paid the price. In his head, EB1s contribute more to the economy than EB3s, so the discrimination sets in. Also, he may think EB3Is are already waiting for 10+ years - what harm is there is adding 2 more years to the wait.
I am sure this thing will continue again this year for his zeal to keep EB1 Current as long as he can. His other fascination is to keep EB2ROW at C while giving EB3ROW a cutoff date. And EB3Is will continue to pay the price.
I thought it might be useful to show in a simplified form, who did well and who did not in FY2016, compared to the expected numbers due to retrogression in the categories.
I've had to make some assumptions, such as assuming that Countries in EB1 received an equal % extra allocation of visa numbers.
FY2016 Winners and Losers
EB Allocation - 140,338
EB Actual ----- 140,350
Difference --------- 12
Winners --------- Extra -- % Extra
EB1-C ----------- 1,216 ---- 27.1%
EB1-I ----------- 2,370 ---- 27.1%
EB2-C -------------- 27 ----- 1.0%
EB2-I ----------- 1,120 ---- 39.9%
EB3-C ------------- 305 ---- 12.2%
EB4-ROW ------------ 65 ----- 0.7%
Total ----------- 5,103
Losers ----------- Loss ---- % Loss
EB2-ROW/M/P ---- (2,173) ---- (6.3%)
EB3-non C ------ (2,901) ---- (7.7%) -- (62.8%) if all visas had been allocated to EB3-I
EB5-C ------------- (17) ---- (0.2%)
Total ---------- (5,091)
Net Win ------------ 12
This is outright blasphemy and CO needs to be sacked right now for doing this. Who gave him the authority to overstep the legal limits. I am disgusted, each year I think this is it and CO deliberately under-allocates to EB3I. What's more no one -not one lawyer firm, not one AILA rep questions him on this. Isnt there anything we can do about this? There has to be something...This has to stop or else Eb3I will suffer this year too. I have waited 11 years so I know 12 wont matter but thats not a valid reason for ME!Quote:
Originally Posted by EB3Iwaiting
Looking at the low EB3ROW numbers, I was hoping that EB3I would eventually get some 6k (conservative) to even 10k (optimistic) overall GCs this FY. But what's the point. Even if that happens, CO will probably take away 3k to 5k from EB3 and give it to EB1. EB3I is completely at the mercy at CO and whatever he throws down.
is there anyway we can ask why is he doing this when he has the monthly check-ins with AILA? no wonder he doesnt say anything on this category because all he is interested in is giving away visas to other category and then throw down the leftover to EB3I, despite it being above his authority!!Quote:
Originally Posted by EB3Iwaiting
We can do this ourselves. And only we will do. Nobody else cares including **. What can we do next ? Let us comeup with a 'scientific' description and calculation as to how Eb3-I was discriminated against. ( This is not something new, he has done in 2009 as well). Once we have this, we will draft a letter to CO himself and all relevant lawmakers pointing this out. Our calculations should be right so that CO cannot rubbish our claims. Once the letter is ready, let us each send this letter. So please come up with the numbers how we were under allocated and why. My INA reading is a bit old, otherwise I could do that. Gurus please help.Quote:
Originally Posted by anuprab
My memory leads me here.
EB category has 140K visa per annum. Among these categories visas are equally divided between EB1, EB2 and EB3. So total allocation of each EB1, EB2 and EB3 category should be same. EB1 sees an over allocation in total and EB1-India has over allocation among EB1. Am I right ? Please correct me if I am wrong.
Guys - most of you probably may not know this ... but gcq already has received his own GC.
So it is mighty gracious of him to offer his help.
My 2 cents are .. don't make it personal to your category or country. Simply make a point - how fair it is for those waiting in GC line in EB category to be discriminated based on the country origin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
Thanks Q !
Cannot believe that in this day and age, we have a system where folks are judged and discriminated based on their country of birth. Totally against the basic principal of equality to all.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Only if Indians could stop their infighting and challenge this in a law of court.
January 2017 pending inventory is out:
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...nuary_2017.pdf
Version does not include numbers from field offices. Most remain unchanged. The big difference: The EB3ROW pending inventory went up from 9.6k to 15.6k. 2015 saw a huge jump from 455 to 6973. How is this possible with 2015 being current in EB3ROW for so long? Where were all these applicants just 3 months ago??
Can the gurus explain? Or I am inclined to think the EB3ROW numbers are fake to show that EB3I will not get any SO as those GCs will be siphoned to EB1.
From the latest inventory, they cleaned up cases for EB2-I 2011 and beyond, and for EB3-I from 2008 and beyond.
There was an addition of 900 cases for EB3-I for PD 2000 (Nov and Dec). Not sure where these cases popped up from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EB3Iwaiting
Can this be true ? This is so utterly ridiculous - How can they cheat so blatantly ? Experienced Gurus here - can nothing be done to stop this behavior ?
Experts any affect on GC with 28% reduction on DOS budget ?
Will it help EB2,EB3-I ?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/16/politi...inkId=35543838
It will lead to 28% more mis-allocation of GCs.Quote:
Originally Posted by oraclept
right said..beyond frustrating to see year after year EB3I being denied their righfull SO quota. YTEleven's chart would have been true had the CO decided not to $%^& this category up royally.Quote:
Originally Posted by EB3Iwaiting
Hello Experts,
I have a question based on the data below which is from the Annual reports from 2008 to 2016.
https://travel.state.gov/content/vis...l-reports.html
Year EB1 EB2 EB3 Total (EB1 + EB2 +EB3) Total (EB2 + EB3)
2008 5,326 14,806 3,745 23,877 18,551
2009 6,672 10,106 2,304 19,082 12,410
2010 6,741 19,961 3,036 29,738 22,997
2011 4,563 23,997 4,002 32,562 27,999
2012 9,506 19,726 2,804 32,036 22,530
2013 9,640 17,193 7,816 34,649 25,009
2014 12,978 23,527 3,526 40,031 27,053
2015 12,253 7,235 7,026 26,514 14,261
2016 10,985 3,930 4,617 19,532 8,547
Avg(08-16) 8,740 15,609 4,320 28,669 19,929
Avg(08-14) 8,350 19,085 3,915 31,350 23,000
I don’t understand the huge drop in spill overs towards EB2 in 2015 (7,235) and 2016 (3,930). In the years before 2015 which I guess were also heavy porting years (some if not all), EB2 averaged around 19,000 (2008 to 2014 reaching as high as almost 24000 in 2011 and 2014) with the minimum in 2009 (10,106).
I see the numbers for EB1 have gone up starting 2012 but not as much. Total for all 3 categories in 2016 is 19,532 (lowest since 2009 when it was 19,082 but that could be becauseEB1 numbers for 2009 are low as well: 6,672). The total for EB2 + EB3 in 2016 is actually the lowest: 8,547 (lowest since 2009 when it was 12,410). Not sure since I only looked at India numbers so it could probably well be due to the high demand from other countries but is this a new trend or will we fall back to higher spillovers for EB2 or EB3, the two most retrogressed categories? If this is the new trend what’s the reason for such a steep drop in EB2 numbers as I’m not sure if porting is the reason?
EB2 + EB3 are at the lowest since 2009, EB1 for 2016 (10,985) has gone up but not in huge numbers, it was 9,640 in 2013.
Please feel free to correct anything that is wrong, I’m just trying to learn and might be mistaken. I understand all the above numbers are higher than the maximum allocation limit of 2800 for EB2 and EB3. I was just wondering because the numbers for EB1 have not gone up by much since 2012(9,506) but the spillover was still pretty large for EB2 from 2012 to 2014 and very small in 2016
Attachment 1143
2 things.Quote:
Originally Posted by EB3Iwaiting
1. This budget will never pass in Senate as it is. Either it would not be touched at all or it would end up having significant changes before it passes and would look completely different when it comes out. Happened with pretty much all the budgets proposed in the past too over last many decades.
2. To mis-allocate green cards, they don't need to have a lean budget and be short of funds or staff. They are mis-allocating it even when they don't have any budget issue being fully staffed and funded. They are competently incompetent. :p
There are two explanations at a high level 1) The improving economy and 2) Systemic discrimination faced by EB-I.
1) The economy became better and better and increased demand across the board including ROW demand. Given how spillovers are entirely dependent on ROW - no wonder EB2/3 are affected. EB5 hasn't helped nor EB4 religious folks. They are coming in droves and so no spillovers.
2) Systemic discrimination - this is a very nuanced point. I have been analyzing GC allocation since 2005. In my observation DoS has a visceral feeling against allocating any GC visas to Indians. They will find every excuse to divert visas to other countries. First they simply used to not give out visas. When there was a huge uproar over this and in 2003 visas were recaptured via a bill ... they started allocating visas by conveniently applying a wrong interpretation of visa allocation (fall down rather than across) interpretation. When that was declared illegal .... for a few years they had to allocated 20-30K visas to EB2I which came to a halt when they started clearing other countries backlogs - first in 485 then in 140 and then at labor level. In last few years we are seeing them allocating EB visas to FB categories under the pretense that 7% rule is across EB and FB categories.
One can argue my arguments here and there ... and that's fine ... what one can't argue is the fact that Indians are the most discriminated people in green card allocation. Just because you were born in India makes you the lowlife of green card allocation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bourne_ny