Printable View
Spec,
In your analysis how EB3 retrogressed countries limit visas to EB3-ROW, you should consider one more ( the most important) factor, the PD. If PD of ROW is older than EB3-I, ROW would get the visa first. The fact is EB3-I is at 2003 and EB3-ROW is at 2010. You are not considering that disparity in PD in your analysis.
gcq,Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
Don't use the 2010 Cut Off Date that will become Current in September as the baseline for comparison - it's disingenuous at best. We both know the "true" COD by the end of this FY will be late 2007 or early 2008.
You are falling into the trap of thinking as the ROW Grouping as an individual Country. It is not.
It is impossible for EB3-ROW Group to have a Cut Off Date earlier than EB3-I. At worst, they could be the same.
If a Country within the ROW group had such high demand that they needed a Cut Off Date earlier than EB3-I, they would be pulled out of the ROW grouping an be shown as an individual Country in the VB with their own individual Cut Off Date.
Similarly, if India's demand overall were ever to fall sufficiently that they would not consume 7%, they would become part of the ROW grouping and not show as an individual Country.
The EB3-ROW group must, by definition have the latest Cut Off Date in a Category, since no Country may have a Cut Off Date later than that set for EB3-Worldwide. Worldwide has to include ROW, otherwise every Country would have to be shown separately and have their own individual Cut Off Date.
As a PS, the 7% allocation is computed for the total of FB an EB visas. Last year it was 25,967.
Only 4 Countries exceeded that number:
Mexico ---------------- 49,562
India ----------------- 44,862
China - mainland born - 38,948
Philippines ----------- 26,231
The only other Countries that even reached 5 figures were:
Dominican Republic ---- 20,382
Vietnam --------------- 15,910
Korea, South ---------- 13,216
Even the highest consuming ROW Country could have used another 5k and still been within the 7% limit.
That's simply because of all these illegal wars and activities that the previous administration undertook.
Now US must give protection to the snitches in those countries. That's what the asylum visas are. If asylum visas were truly humanitarian then half the world would already be here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
Q,Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
You're not wrong there!
The rules as is now has 2 components.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
1. Priority Date
2. Country cap.
As per INA, no country can be discriminated against ( i.e. they need to be allocated in in the order of PD). INA acknowledges that it is a discrimination otherwise.
The only time the first rule can be broken is when a country exceeds 7% of the overall quota. In that case that country need not be allocated any more visas.
In this order, retrogressed countries have a priority over ROW until the limit is reached. Once the limit is reached, ROW has a priority.
I admire you Spec for even saying that!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
No, you're wrong. My concept is such a flight of fancy that it is a waste of time for us to debate it, but I'll respond because your argument was the response I kept getting on trackitt, and it's simply not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
Firstly, I think you mean Fall Across, not Fall Over, right? For EB3I to retrogress even more than it is now, the spillover of 26,480 under my scenario would have to be < 2,554 (2,804-250). That's more than a 90% drop compared to what the 2012 spillover would be, or more than a 350% increase in applications from the 133 countries that don't use 250 visas each. Not likely to happen for another 30 years at least, in my opinion.
A simple check would be to look at the 2005 through 2007 DoS data (highest years of EB3 usage I would expect), and see where the numbers would be for those years. I'm willing to bet that the spillover under that scenario is at least 15,000 in each year.
gcq,Quote:
Originally Posted by gcq
Close enough.
The first job is to identify those Countries that will, or are likely to exceed the 7% per Country limit.
The visa prorating provisions of Section 202(e) apply to allocations for a foreign state or dependent area when visa demand exceeds the per-country limit. The overall 7% figure is prorated across the FB & EB categories under 202(e). For a normal year, of the 25,620 that represent the 7% limit, EB3 would receive an allocation of 2,803 visas for the year.
Then the visa allowance is broken down into a maximum quarterly allotment of 27% for the first 3 quarters and then further into monthly allotments.
If you call that 9% per month, then the overall EB3 allotment would be 3,604 in each of the first 9 months of the total 40,040 available for the year.
The EB3-I monthly allotment is 3,604 * 7% = 252 visas. The same would be true of Mexico and Philippines and China would have an allotment of 225, since they only receive 2,503 visas in EB3.
That would leave the remaining monthly allotment of 2,623 for ROW.
That is a rather simplified version, but I have no reason to believe that underlying basis has been broken.
Oh man don't get me started on Asylum. I know people that personally lied that they are being raped, persecuted, etc in my country that never true. Come to US and applied for Asylum and got Green card in a year.
Anyways back on Topic. I'm super convinced now that Nov/Dec VB will retrogress. The biggest question is how it moves after that.
Do you think DOS will employ the same tactics? move it to like mid 2011 on last quarter of 2014?
Thanks,
mar2603
I don't think that will happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by mar2603
The movement into 2010 should generate sufficient demand for at least FY2014 and FY2015 unless the numbers are exceptionally low.
I don't think the dates will move beyond what they will be in September until the Inventory built up from that movement is nearly exhausted.
How the dates move next year depends on the density of applications received.
I'm not convinced yet that Trackitt is providing a reliable guide to those numbers.
Oh i see. Wait, even taking into account that there was recession during 2008 - 2010?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
mar2603,Quote:
Originally Posted by mar2603
There was much talk about that last year when EB2-IC Cut Off Dates also went through the same period.
Ultimately, the effect of the recession didn't seem to be that marked.
Would be immigrants are great survivors, one way or another.
Whether it is the same for EB3-ROW, I don't know.
Okay I do understand that now by looking at this - http://immigrationroad.com/visa-bull...t=Get+BulletinQuote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
Uhm, forgive me, but I'm not trying to do stereotyping or insult any Indian community here, but for some reason, a lot of Indian are in Consulting business. This is unlike ROW. For example, when I graduated from college, I got a job in rural Pennsylvania. I have couple friends who are EB3/EB2 ROW. Most of them are like me. Working for a company that I am the only one who being sponsored H1B or green card.
When I moved to NJ, I have a lot of Indian friends and they are all working in client site. In 2010, a lot of them have no projects and usually sitting on bench period. I feel their pain. They got payroll to keep their status afloat, but they got some arrangement or something that they need to pay it back after new project coming or something like that. Or waiting in India and their green card sponsorship still valid (since green card is future employment anyways).
In 2009-2011, i have friends on Merryl or Bear sterns, lost their job, (ROW and forced to go home). This is NOT the case with Indian with consulting job. When their project got cut off, they still have their status since their consulting company is their employer.
I believe a lot of people in EB2-I have this case and therefore they are immune to recession.
Also something weird, look at the data. Why they retrogress the date in the middle of 2012 and NOT beginning of fiscal year? They keep advancing cut off dates since may 2011. (looks like the same pattern like ROW right).
If you see last buletin, it clearly said, that "At this time there is no indication that the expected increase is materializing or will do so in the near future. This has resulted in significant movements in the September cut-off for all countries. "
So this statement is a complete lie to public right? since there will be A LOT OF DEMAND even until january 2009 cutoff date.
BTW, I really appreciate your insight. I think you are great in prediction.
In FY2011, CO decided to release some of the SO early and moved the COD from May of the FY and continued through September (the last month of the FY). That left the dates just short of exhausting the existing Inventory.Quote:
Originally Posted by mar2603
I some kind of grand experiment, CO decided to move the COD forward from October 2011 (the first month of FY2012) and continued to do so well past the July 2007 PD in an effort to create a new Inventory for the future. He did this in part because USCIS assured him that EB1 demand for the year would be very low and yield 12k SO.
USCIS then started processing the new cases faster than ever before and it turned out that there was no SO from EB1.
By the time this was realized in late March. EB2-IC had already used more visas than would be available to them in the full year and this caused EB2-WW to retrogress because there were not enough visa left to satisfy their Demand. EB2 ended up using more than the allocation for the year in just 6 months. It was a complete disaster.
CO cannot see demand until USCIS actually adjudicate the case. This is why he prefers to have a future pool of pre-adjudicated cases in the Demand Data, allowing him to move the COD more accurately.
It's not a lie from the DOS point of view. Currently they are not seeing these cases.Quote:
If you see last buletin, it clearly said, that "At this time there is no indication that the expected increase is materializing or will do so in the near future. This has resulted in significant movements in the September cut-off for all countries. "
So this statement is a complete lie to public right? since there will be A LOT OF DEMAND even until january 2009 cutoff date.
Eventually, even the move to a COD of 01JAN09 will bring in a significant number of cases. The problem is that they do not translate to Demand that DOS can see until USCIS adjudicate them. At that point they are either approved (if the PD is still Current) or become pre-adjudicated and show in the DOS Demand Data (if the COD has retrogressed to equal to or earlier than the PD).
Wow nice reply. Thank you for this. I kind a understand it now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
Hmm is there any published inventory of EB3 ROW approved I140 somewhere? I think that's going to be a good data to forecast the demand data don't you think?
mar2603,Quote:
Originally Posted by mar2603
CO also thinks so.
He has repeatedly asked USCIS for this information, but USCIS have said it is not available.
USCIS are either lying, too lazy, want to score a political point, or USCIS systems are so antiquated that they lack the ability to generate the report. Take your pick.
For cases that DOS process through CP, USCIS has to send them the approved I-140 and DOS do compile those figures (including dependents if mentioned on the I-140).
DOS publish a Summary document (not broken down by PD year unfortunately) annually.
Wait a sec. But you can only add dependents to receive green card when you file I-485 right. I don't think I include my wife in my I140 application.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
Usually when people calculate this, for every primary we do X 2.5 more or less.
USCIS is horrible lol. I think they are just plain lazy. sort of DMV worker in my area hahahaha
Part 7 of the I-140 form asks for information about any dependents who will subsequently be applying for a visa or AOS.Quote:
Originally Posted by mar2603
The I-140 Instructions say:
It is informational to help calculate numbers and processing type, but it is not mandatory to fill it in as far as I am aware. Not mentioning dependents on the I-140 should have no consequences.Quote:
Part 7. Information on Spouse and All Children of the Person for Whom You Are Filing, of Form I-140 requests information about the dependent spouse and children of the alien beneficiary of the petition to assist in visa processing and in order for USCIS to better determine the demand for employment-based immigrant visas at the time of filing of the Form I-140 petition.
NOTE: An annotation of a dependent's intention to either apply for adjustment of status or an immigrant visa abroad in Part 7. of the Form I-140 is not binding, but should reflect the dependent's intent at the time of filing of the Form I-140 petition.
I see. Because some people fall into category like me (get married after I140 approved couple years ago). And I think the rule is not binding is correctQuote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
I would like to ask the Gurus here one question. My PD is Jul 2006 Eb 3 I. In the absence of CIR , assuming that the current rate of porting continues, is there any possibility for my PD to become current in 2016? I am trying to mentally prepare for the worst possible scenario. It might look like I am living in a dream land - but I would like to hear from you all here who have a better understanding of these VB movements.
Thank you very much in advance
Amul
Spec,
DO you think there will be a tussle to consume all of the visas in EB3 between EB3I and EB3ROW.
EB3ROW moved to 1 Jul 10. If you look at DOS waiting list then, CP cases can easily consume all the remaining EB3 visas
EB3I moved to Sep 2003. The CP + AOS cases can easily finish off remaining EB3 quota
If the tussle is real who may win?
kd,Quote:
Originally Posted by kd2008
Here's my thoughts. The comments are really thinking on the fly. I'd be interested in your view. With a few exceptions of those who have gone through the process, our (well, certainly my) knowledge can be described as hazy at best on the subject of CP.
If there is a tussle, I think it will be within AOS cases processed by USCIS.
Since the EB3-I cases are already pre-adjudicated with USCIS and EB3-ROW/C/M cases are only being adjudicated for the first time by USCIS, the winner seems obvious. The lowest hanging fruit which will enable the ISO to boost their productivity numbers are the EB3-I cases.
For CP cases, the visas are allocated in advance, when the VB is set. Barring no shows and denials which would result in the visa being returned later, those numbers would already be known to CO from the Consular reports he received in the first week of August before he set the September VB. Those CP cases will get their Immigrant Visa this FY if they are approvable at the interview.
The potential problem with CP cases may have been the ability of NVC/Consulates (and the applicants themselves) to make the cases documentarily qualified in time and to schedule sufficient interview slots given the short notice.
I did not see any posts in the forums about people (from either ROW or India) getting contacted by NVC to pay even the processing fee and submit initial information (call it packet 3), let alone be in a position to complete the final steps with NVC (call it packet 4). Even allowing for the fact that CP has fairly low representation on the forums, the virtually total lack of posts may be a clue that CO was unable to give NVC sufficient warning.
If numbers were large, ROW would probably have a slight advantage for CP, because India has a set number of Consulates that can issue Immigrant Visas (and therefore interview slots), whereas ROW is many individual Countries.
One thought that comes to mind is - if CO felt he could use up the remaining EB3 visas from CP alone (or even mostly from ROW CP), he would have had no need to move the EB3-I COD so far. That seems to imply that he didn't have sufficient ROW/C/M CP documentarily qualified cases to use the remaining visas when he set the September VB COD.
When I talked in January about how CO should handle the looming EB3-ROW situation, I moved the COD quite aggressively at the beginning (then retrogressed) precisely to give CP cases sufficient time to be processed. Then, later PD CP cases could, if necessary, ensure full use the ROW/C/M allocation by moving the COD forward again, if USCIS could not process sufficient numbers before the end of the FY. That approach also ensured that late PD CP cases did not preferentially consume the visa numbers purely because DOS could process them faster than USCIS could process AOS cases.
amulchandra,Quote:
Originally Posted by amulchandra
I think the answer to how EB3-I will move is quite a difficult one to answer.
The EB3-I COD has just moved into the PDs that have seen substantial porting and the forward movement might be expected to accelerate. Until now, EB3-I has generally moved forward at a fairly pitiful rate - often only 1-2 week per month.
With the information to hand currently, it seems difficult to see your PD becoming Current in FY2016 despite a brighter outlook going forward.
Here's the simplistic way I arrived at that conclusion.
Using the latest USCIS Inventory figures (which only represent about 93% of all cases) and a best case scenario:
a) If all cases up to September 2003 were approved this year.
Then 28.4k cases would be left going into FY2014 to cover a PD in July 2006.
b) Assume a further 3.4k porting cases will be removed for cases approved in FY2013.
That would leave 25k cases left going into FY2014.
c) Assume the EB3-I numbers reduced at a rate of 6k per year (total of EB3-I approvals plus porters) for FY2014 to FY2016.
At the end of FY2016 the number left to be approved to cover a PD of July 2006 would be 25k - (3 * 6) = 7k.
It might be possible to judge the new reality for EB3-I after FY2014.
Sorry I can't give either a better outlook or a more comprehensive reply.
Thank you very much Spectator for your detailed and in depth reply. I think as you mentioned I need to wait till next demand data is released to see exactly what the future holds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
Amul
Amul,Quote:
Originally Posted by amulchandra
You're welcome.
I think it was an unsatisfactory reply because it is really only guesses and speculation.
The November DD should give an idea of the numbers going into FY2014, but I think it needs many more months to establish the pattern of movement in EB3-I for the FY.