Printable View
Other than that these 3 things made F2A current:Quote:
Originally Posted by dorais
1. 75% of those 77% are not subject to country limits.
2. F2A/B limit is 114200 + any numbers more than 226000 for the entire F category
3. F2A is meant for spouses of GC holders. Thats an odd category because usually the spouse would already be covered in some other category as secondary applicant while the primary's GC was being processed.
I doubt this would happen. CO would have retrogressed the dates in this month's VB if this is the case. And if this were to happen he would have indicated this in the VB.
(he has indicated about such usage in the past when he was not very sure). The way he confidently put out Demand data with just 9000 EB2 I prior to Jan 2009 suggests
to me that only he knows the strategy that is in effect. Visa numbers got exhausted couple of weeks before sep end and hence he had 3 wks to know the demand prior to Jun 2008
that was not yet satisifed from 2013.
In my opinion he would probably keep the dates the same for longer. There are always folks who benefit vs folks who lose. When resources are limited - we all want the CO to act / work in our favor. some win some lose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jagan01
One interesting observation EB3I demand reduced by 15,175 in the last one year (Nov 2012 to Nov 2013)Quote:
Originally Posted by veni001
CO cannot use up an entire years visa in in the first or second month of the year. It is prohibited by law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jagan01
Any supporting documents ?Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
INA: ACT 201 - WORLDWIDE LEVEL OF IMMIGRATIONQuote:
Originally Posted by Jagan01
Sec. 201. [8 U.S.C. 1151]
(a)(2) employment-based immigrants described in section 203(b) (or who are admitted under section 211(a) on the basis of a prior issuance of a visa to their accompanying parent under section 203(b) ), in a number not to exceed in any fiscal year the number specified in subsection (d) for that year, and not to exceed in any of the first 3 quarters of any fiscal year 27 percent of the worldwide level under such subsection for all of such fiscal year
Jagan,
The chief of Visa Office is directed by the Immigration and Nationality Act to release only 27% (less than or equal to) of the total annual quota in the first three quarters of any fiscal year.
I may be late in pointing out this from the November 2013 visa Bulletin. Guys, Ignore this if it has already been discussed.
D. VISA AVAILABILITY
It is important to remember that the establishment of a monthly cut-off or "Current" status for a numerically controlled category (preference or Diversity) applies to those applicants who were reported prior to the allocation of visa numbers for that month. For example, all qualified applicants who were reported to the Visa Office in time to be included in the calculation of the September cut-offs, who had a priority date or rank-order number before the relevant September cut-off, would have been allotted visa numbers for September. There would be no expectation, however, that sufficient numbers would be available for the processing of cases which subsequently became eligible for final action during that month. Additional numbers may be allocated outside the regular monthly cycle, but only to the extent that such numbers remain available under the applicable annual limit. The availability of additional numbers is subject to change at any time and should never be taken for granted. This is especially true late in the fiscal year when numerical allocations are often close to or at the annual limits.
Law clearly states that per country rule isn't applicable in the quarter where there isn't enough demand for ROW. So if in later quarters demand is high enough, per-country rule will be applicable for that quarter.Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
This is exactly what I have been thinking. PERM approval now averages 200 days, that is even before shutdown. If you look at the trend since last year, that number has been increasing steadily. Last year it used to be 60-90 days. This quarter is a very good candidate for QSP, given ever slowing PERM + slowdown + weak economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by sportsfan33
If slowdown continues in second quarter, CO may not retrogress EB2I dates like we have been expecting. He may advance EB2I few weeks at a time to gradually use up excess visa. Real beneficiaries will be porters as there won't be retrogression.
This is true. What is vague (and may be Kanmani can see through the legal jargon) is the interpretation of 7% country limit. Once a quarter is history - is 7% interpreted over the remaining visas or the full year limit? My hunch is it is the latter.Quote:
Originally Posted by PD2008AUG25
Q, I'll try to explain this as much I can in simple words .Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620
This total includes FB + EB , for a non-retrogressed country this annual limit is never reached . DoS has no botheration over monitoring the visa numbers released for the "C" countries.(those countries whose dates are always current in the Visa bulletin)
In the case of both India/China, they have backlog in each and every sub-division of FB and EB. DoS has no option other than fixing 7% upper limit within the subdivision of FB and EB. This way they can monitor that 7% of F1 + 7% of F2..........+7% of EB5 will not exceed the 25,620 .
For India, 7% of Eb2 limitation is 2800 ( in a typical 140K year).
Out of 10,800 released per quarter to all EB2 countries, only 27% of 2800=756 is allotted to India per quarter. This 756 is subjected to annual limitation.
If all 10,800 are not seem to be utilized, CO by law has every right to distribute to backlogged countries. These extra visas are not counted against that 2800 total.
Again, India is eligible for 756 in the second quarter.
Jagan, a few observations to point out why you are wrong:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jagan01
a) CO does not give or stop giving approvals. The USCIS does that. CO and the DoS can only publish the VB which determines who is eligible for approval.
b) The USCIS has never previously internally retrogressed based on annual limits for a particular country. I don't believe that they have the mechanisms in place to do so (although that wouldn't be difficult to install), and I can't find any legal justification for it. They have only internally retrogressed in the past when annual availability for a complete category was used up.
c) If there is demand from EB2I this month or next, the USCIS has to keep giving out visas. Only CO can make it U in the next VB, but that wont' kick in until December. So, if the USCIS keeps giving visas beyond the 3000 to EB2I, there is defacto quarterly spill over.
Very interesting indeed. The fact that EB3ROW PD is also progressing despite the 3 year jump and EB3I PD is steady after a big jump probably indicates that a good part of the EB3 demand has been lost - either due to porting or through demand destruction.
An EB3ROW PD in 2010s means that EB2ROW should see less porting demand coming in - that will help EB2IC through better horizontal spillover numbers. Its an encouraging sign.
PS> Hi everybody. I have been lurking occasionally but have not posted much. Glad to see the forum as healthy as always.
Quote:
Originally Posted by veni001
Kanmani, I agree with everything else, but the 27% limitation, by my read only applies to the enire category (EB1, EB2 etc), not to individual countries within that category. If EB2 ROW doesn't use its share of the 10,800 this Quarter (which it appears that it won't) India is permitted to use the remaining amount, but that does not increase its annual limitations. I.e, if due to QSP India uses up its annual limitation in Q1, it can be made unavailable in Q2, and doesn't have a right to an additional 756 per quarter if EB2 ROW demand materializes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanmani
Having said that, the 10,800 is only an upper limit and there is no requirement that it be fully used in each of Q1 through Q3. In the past, COs position would have be to set the VB so that EB2I only use 1/12th of its 2,800 visas each month (including potential porting) and wait until Q4 to allot the annual spillover to EB2I so that he doesn't fall afoul of the country limits in Q4 if new EB2ROW demand materializes. This year, either he is confident that EB2I demand pre-June 15 2008 is lower than EB2I annual limitations (so no quarterly spillover is being used), or he is confident that EB2ROW demand won't materialize by the end of the year (so quarterly spillover is being used).
I would repeat the same question you asked earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by PD2008AUG25
Any supporting documents/law in support of this ?
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/S...-0-0-1016.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by gcq
(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.
Yes Pedro, you are correct. 27% applies to the entire category.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro Gonzales
Regarding the QSP discussions, my interpretation from the Nov 2013 visa bulletin (Quoted above in my earlier post today)is that CO had a clear sketch in moving the dates to june 2008. He made a reservation for the (then) future demand that could be accumulated between August 10th to September 31st i.e., demand after the release of Sept Demand data (Newly filed/interfilers-porters).
This situation rarely becomes a reality. This statement is not specific to a retrogresses category ( EB2-I for example), this can happen only when total EB demand is less that total EB visas available for that quarter. With such a high demand from retrogressed countries, this will never happen most of the time including now.Quote:
Originally Posted by PD2008AUG25
if (demand (EB ROW + EB INDIA + EB CHINA) < Total Visas available )
{
do QSP
}
Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
If demand (Eb2I + Eb2C + EB2ROW) < supply (EB2)
do QSP to EB2
Note that total visas refer to individual 5 categories. look at the "or (5)" in that sentence.
How else can you explain EB1 India being current? There is always continuous QSP going on in EB1I.
gcq,Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
Paragraph 1 of Section 203(b) is EB1, Paragraph 2 is EB2 .....etc
Under that paragraph refers to within the category EB1, EB2 etc....
PD2008AUG25is correct .
Kanmani thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanmani
I take my words back here. I think that all numbers allocated to retrogressed countries count towards country limit regardless of what kind of numbers they are.
Even if you consider that comparison to be within a category ( say EB2), the condition still does not apply as we know there is lot of demand within EB2-I category itself. Again, the key is "sum of EB2 ROW + EB2-I + EB2C + EB2*".Quote:
Originally Posted by PD2008AUG25
For EB1, country quota doesn't apply by the same rule or that fact that India doesn't have enough demand in EB1 category to become a retrogressed category.
We may be going in circles. So for clarity here is some explanation of visa allocation and limits.
1. Overall limit is 140K for all EB. That itself is a lower limit. Not an upper one. Any discussion on this topic alone could be a separate thread. However lets move to point 2.
2. Then there are category limits which are all hard % limits i.e. no room for interpretation. 28.6 for EB1/2/3 and 7.1 for 4/5.
3. Then there is something called as country limit which is 7% but is measured across EB and FB. It it important to note that this is limit - not quota but because most of the backlogged countries have cases that are ripe to be allocated visas - this limit practically turns into a quota. But otherwise no other country really has any quota whatsoever.
4. Then there is a provision that says every quarter USCIS should allocate not more than 27% of annual EB numbers. Again - this is upper limit but DOS tries to reach that limit so as not to waste visas in later parts of the year.
Now having said this - how does this play out in a year? Lets say there is 100K visas available for year.
So DOS starts with 27000 in Q1. And divides among all categories in their % quotas (28.6 and 7.1 for EB1/2/3 and 4/5 respectively).
It is not clear at a month level what Does DOS do. However within a quarter DOS does try to allocate 7722 from above example for EB2. There is no quota for any country at this point. So it will simply allocate to the oldest demand first. Clearly EB2I will reach its 7% very quickly. So then EB2I then stops and DOS continues with other countries that are current. If near the end of the quarter, DOS sees that there isn't enough demand within other countries it will give remaining visas to EB2I regardless of EB2I's country limit.
The question is what happens in Q2 now that EB2I may have already reached its Q2 or even the full year limit?
So first DOS will calculate Q2 EB2 numbers (7722 from above example). And again start allocating oldest first. If EB2I has already reached its limit then it will have to wait until the end of Quarter when DOS will make a determination if there are extra visas available within EB2. If indeed so, then EB2I will receive those visas regardless of the country limit.
Another question is when is 7% limit calculated within EB vs EB+FB vs within a quarter etc. My best understanding is that it is not clear. It is left to DOS discretion. I think DOS certainly uses better common sense in calculating 7% only for EB and that too at quarter or even month level in early quarters. As quarters progress perhaps in 3 or 4th quarter DOS will look across EB and FB to determine if 7% is already reached for a particular country.
I hope this helps. As I said - there are somethings we know for sure. And then there are others where we can debate endlessly because none of us really know those things. But I have tried my best to illustrate the process.
Pedro,
I will point out why I disagree with you.
In response to your point (b):Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro Gonzales
If what you are saying is true then all countires within one category should become unavailable together. If the EB2 limit is exausted then why only make EB2I unavailable. Why not EB2WW?
In response to you point (c):
I mentioned the same thing that first 3000 will be the annual quota used and post that it will be the Quarterly Spillover. The point where we differ is that you think he will continue past 3000 and I think that he will stop at 3000. As I mentioned in response to your point (b), I think EB2I can be made unavailable after it uses its quota and then again made available at end of the year to use the spillover.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
That equation is slightly misleading. Considering that 7% is max limit for a country and we know that only India and China uses their full allocation, resulting equation is:
EB2I (max allocation/qtr) + EB2C (max allocation/qtr) + EB2 Row usage per qtr < supply for EB2 (qtr)
do QSP.
This quarter it means that if EB2ROW < 9100, QSP is technically possible.
EB1 India demand is far in excess of 7% per-country rule. Only reason EB1 India is not retrogressed because EB1 ROW uses much less numbers and total EB1 usage is still around or below 40k. Regardless, Rule that governs EB1, also governs EB2.
Jagan, PD2008AUG25, gcq - You might find the discussion at this link useful. Spec and Pedro did a great job at explaining various aspects of the spillover allocation.
On EB vs EB+FB, DOS uses EB+FB to determine the quota for the year. ( Not sure of Quarter. I assume DOS will have to divide the annual quota to calculate the quarterly limit). We have a proof that DOS uses this calculation from one of the 2009 visa bulletins where DOS allocated more than the 7% of the quota to EB3 S.Korea and they were not listed as retrogressed country as their total ( EB + FB ) usage was below 7%.Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Yes certainly they do it. But the question is how does this then further gets calculated within a quarter or a month. That's what I was referring to in my post above that at a month or quarter level during first few quarters or months - most likely EB+FB is not considered because that time everything is wide open. As usage takes place it is easier to calculate and see who is approaching the overall limit.Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
You are right, the internal retrogression in May 2012 was instituted even before the entire EB2 2012 allocation was used up. I remembered it wrongly. Based on that history, what you stated could well happen. If it does, it'll certainly be a new strategy employed and one I like. Give EB2 its 3K at the beginning of the year and only give the spillover at the end of the year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jagan01
Q,Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Thanks for the detailed explanation. Whatever you mentioned makes perfect sense.
Please delete this if you seem its not relevant.
I do not know if we have focused enough on the verbose in the demand data "All eligible cases were then allocated Employment-based numbers on October 1, 2013, under the FY 2014 annual limits."
If spillover was being used then the verbose should have said "unused numbers". "FY 2014 annual limits" says its all.
Trackitt update:
Total approvals in Oct 2013 = 176 (~2640)
Total new filers approvals in Oct 2013 = 40 (~600)
Annual limit of approx 3000 will hit by the end of the week and I think the approvals will freeze.
As per my interpretation of what Q said in his post, the quarterly spillover will only be applied in end of first quarter (December). The number 7722 as explained by Q changes to 10228 for this year. Here is the math:
Total annual supply (148k) * per quarter max (.27) * per category max (.286) = 11428
11428 - EB2WW demand (200) - EB2C (1000) = 10228.
This makes things interesting as all four options become open in Dec:
If CO think quarterly spillover can be applied:
1. Forward movement : If CO thinks spillover supply can allow to drain the demand until June 2008 (including the new I-485 demand). May or may not happen.
2. Dates remain June 2008: If CO thinks quarterly spillover can be applied. Approx 10228 - 3000 = 7228 new visas. He would have a decent idea about porting demand and know whether total demand before June 2008 is more than 7228 or not. If it is then dates stay at June 2008.
If CO opts not to apply quarterly spillover:
3. Dates are pushed back considerably (Sep 04): Technically to a point where CO does not have to issue any visas. If he is not going for quarterly spillover then this may happen as he would have used up the annual 3000 and left for the year.
4. Dates made U: If he is not considering quarterly spillover then there wont be visas left as annual allocation of 3000 is used up in Oct itself. It would make perfect sense to make it U so that no more porting happens.
Hey Pedro,Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro Gonzales
I seriously hope of getting at least EAD this year :)
I feel I stand a better chance with no Quarterly spillover. Lets see. I will certainly like this new strategy :)
Veni,Quote:
Originally Posted by veni001
I think the demand data posted for Nov 2013 is not correct. For instance EB3-I demand for 2004 is shown as 2900. However it is the demand from year 2003 ( Prior to Jan 2004) as per this link http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/Empl...utOffDates.pdf
Veni,Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
By any chance do you know any thread where we would have the data from 2009? More precisely looking for Demand Data from Oct 2009 - Mar 2010.
I think FY2014 will be pretty similar to FY2010. Such high number of approvals in Oct have only happened in the past in FY2010 and FY2012. FY2012 is not a good example as the inventory had gone down considerably. Hence, I am trying to look at data from FY2010.
Jagan - so then you agree that mathematically it is possible for EB2I to reach its annual limit in Q1 itself but that won't happen until end of Q1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jagan01
As per this thread, Q and Spec are saying that Dos started publishing demand data only from March 2010.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jagan01
Q,Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
In your post you have mentioned everything along quarter lines. I agree to your explanation about what DoS can consume in one quarter. However, I disagree to the statement "mathematically it is possible for EB2I to reach its annual limit in Q1 itself but that won't happen until end of Q1."
Below is my explanation:
1. Currently 178 approvals on trackitt and that amounts to roughly ~2500 approvals in real world. So we will reach the limit of 2900. We will see when the visa approvals stop. I believe that annual limit of ~2900 will be used up before end of this month. Oct end is not end of Q1 and thus I disagree with your statement.
2. In FY2012, we had 291 approvals in trackitt between Oct and Nov. That would have been more than the annual limit of ~2800.
3. In FY2010, we had 178 approvals in trackitt between Oct and Nov. That would have been less than the annual limit of ~2800 but certainly more than limit for two quarters.
Let me make it clear that I am thinking of EB2I annual limit as 2963 for this year which is the minimum that it should get irrespective of spillover, etc.
Jagan
The approvals you are seeing in Oct could very well be using numbers from last year. We have discussed this quite a few times. Usually October does should higher approvals but they are not necessarily from the numbers from this year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jagan01
Q,Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
We have discussed several times since the demand data was published. According to many on this forum the verbose in the Notes section of demand data makes it clear that visas are coming from FY2014 allocation. For your reference, I am pasting the words from the demand data:
The FY 2013 Employment annual limits were reached prior to the end of September, and no further allocation
of numbers was possible after that time. Offices continued to process Employment cases, submitted them in
the normal manner, and such cases were then held in the Visa Office’s “Pending Demand” file. All eligible
cases were then allocated Employment-based numbers on October 1, 2013, under the FY 2014 annual limits.
Jagan - DOS allocating visas is one thing but it takes time for USCIS to recognize that and finally adjust the status. That's what I am saying that althought DOS may allocated the visas in 2013 Sep, the status adjustment can happen in October.
There is no way CO can allocate 3K visas to EB2I in first 2 weeks of October. My final word on this one :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jagan01