EB2 Predictions (Rather Calculations) - 2012

[redsox2009]

2012 Jan inventory shows EB2 India inventory for 2008 as 3701 and for 2007 as 4703 (Aug-Dec), combined together it is not even 10K. Also I tried to fit this into Trackitt sample and look like 20K approval to EB2I is not accurate. Approvals are be less than 20K.

Based on the inventory, EB2 ROW applications till Jan 2012 are 1740.

I'm confident that they will move the dates forward in coming months once they preadjust the dates.

[qesehmk]

mind you that inventory wouldn't include cases that were not yet documentarily qualified?

so a lot of the 2008 cases that were filed but not yet documentarily qualified would not figure in that report.

2012 Jan inventory shows EB2 India inventory for 2008 as 3701 and for 2007 as 4703 (Aug-Dec), combined together it is not even 10K. Also I tried to fit this into Trackitt sample and look like 20K approval to EB2I is not accurate. Approvals are be less than 20K.

Based on the inventory, EB2 ROW applications till Jan 2012 are 1740.

I'm confident that they will move the dates forward in coming months once they preadjust the dates.

[Spectator]

2012 Jan inventory shows EB2 India inventory for 2008 as 3701 and for 2007 as 4703 (Aug-Dec), combined together it is not even 10K. Also I tried to fit this into Trackitt sample and look like 20K approval to EB2I is not accurate. Approvals are be less than 20K.

Based on the inventory, EB2 ROW applications till Jan 2012 are 1740.

I'm confident that they will move the dates forward in coming months once they preadjust the dates.

redsox2009,

I think you will be unpleasantly surprised.

Firstly, the Trackitt approvals do suggest that level (or slightly higher). The derived ratios used to arrive at that figure also agrees with data published by USCIS regarding applications.

Perhaps more important is the figure supplied by Alan Lee in his article after talking to CO in late February.

We didn't believe the figure he quoted for EB2 FY2011 approvals, but that has now proved to be correct. I have to give more credence to the other figures mentioned in the article.

As at the end of February 2012, he was told DOS had allocated 30k visas to EB2. The rate of allocation was running at 2k per week.

March actually showed higher approvals than February on Trackitt, but let's assume the 2k per week rate continued. EB2-IC was internally retrogressed as of March 23, 2012, so let's only assume 3 weeks worth of Demand for EB2 in March.

That still leaves a total of EB2 visas allocated at the end of March as a minimum of 36k.

If the EB2-IC numbers are lower, then EB2-non IC must be higher. Overall the number for EB2-IC appears to be in the range 20-22k at the end of March, with EB2-non IC in the 14-16k range.

If EB1 doesn't provide any additional numbers, then there might be as little as another 8-9k available to EB2 in the second half of the year for all Countries.

Given that EB2-non IC appears to have used around 30-33k in FY2011, I would call that worrying. It isn't surprising that CO has mentioned the possibility of EB2-IC becoming Unavailable and EB2-non IC having a Cut Off Date imposed.

If EB1 doesn't provide visas, or EB4 isn't unusually low again, it is as likely as not based on the numbers reported in Alan Lee's article.

[Transformer]

mind you that inventory wouldn't include cases that were not yet documentarily qualified?

so a lot of the 2008 cases that were filed but not yet documentarily qualified would not figure in that report.

Q, It's my understanding that inventory includes everything irrespective of pre-adjudicated or not. Only DD shows up documentarily qualified cases that are awaiting a VISA number. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I do agree that Jan inventory doesn't give complete picture of 2008 inventory. We may have to wait until USCIS publishes the next 485 invetory.

[Spectator]

Q, It's my understanding that inventory includes everything irrespective of pre-adjudicated or not. Only DD shows up documentarily qualified cases that are awaiting a VISA number. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I do agree that Jan inventory doesn't give complete picture of 2008 inventory. We may have to wait until USCIS publishes the next 485 invetory.

Transformer,

I agree, except that the Inventory does not include "everything".

My understanding is that the Demand Data only includes Documentarily Qualified cases, both CP and AOS, that are in the Pending file.

It fails to register AOS cases approved when the PD is Current.


The USCIS Inventory only includes AOS cases where the underlying I-140 has been approved.

Notably, this means that concurrent filed cases, where the I-140 hasn't yet been approved are not reported. This tends to underestimate the numbers in the system for Categories/Countries that are Current or near to Current. As EB2-IC gets nearer to being Current, it will be a problem that affects them too. If processing times for I-485 decrease, the bigger this problem becomes.

There are gaps in both documents, which makes it difficult to reconcile the numbers contained in them.

To get a good picture for EB2-IC, I think we need to wait for the June Inventory. The March Inventory is likely to be lacking too many cases actually submitted, if the December Inventory is anything to judge by. If nothing else, there will be that suspicion.

[mbasense]

Is there any data to show how many of the GC's assigned came from a EB3-EB2 conversion? Also how this will factor into the next round of GC approvals in Q1'13. I am guessing there have been a significant number of 140 portings during the last 6 months, I wonder if that will affect our projections.

Apologies, if this has been discussed already...

[TeddyKoochu]

Jack,

Once again, thanks for reporting this. It appears the information in the articles by Alan Lee was very accurate.

I hadn't even been looking for the DHS Statistics because they usually come out much later than those from DOS (which still haven't been published). They are usually pretty close to the official DOS figures.

Usage By Category

EB1 ---- 25,251
EB2 ---- 66,831
EB3 ---- 37,216
EB4 ----- 6,701
EB5 ----- 3,340

Total - 139,339

It is an absolute shocker that EB3 received so few visas yet again.

Theoretical spillover from EB1/4/5 appears to be 24.6k. In reality, EB2 received 26.8k which is 2.2k more than was available. Effectively, EB2 robbed EB3 of visas.

Since EB2-C are known to have used at least 8.3k visas, that would make the EB2-I share about 25-26k for SOFAD of about 34k.

That would mean that EB2-ROW/M/P used very close to their 34.4k allocation. If they didn't, then SOFAD must be far higher, but there are limits, if the information about EB2-C is correct and taking into account that India received 33.6k EB visas in total across EB1 - EB5.

The higher SOFAD also indicates that there were a few thousand EB2-IC cases we either didn't know about, or Porting was much higher than anticipated.

Consular Processing in EB2 represented 2.5%, EB3 was 20.0% and CP was 10.7% overall for EB.

We will know when the official DOS Visa Statistics are published, which have the Country breakdown.

Breakdown of EB1

EB1A -------- 2,524 -- 23.67%
EB1B -------- 2,466 -- 23.12%
EB1C -------- 5,675 -- 53.21%

Dependents - 14,586 -- Ratio 2.38 approvals per Primary

Total ------ 25,251

That is very similar to the split for FY2010.

As it affects EB3, it is interesting that Mexico received 9,164 EB visas and Philippines 7,398.

Since neither Country uses huge numbers in other EB Categories, it suggests high usage in EB3, which would depress the numbers available to EB3-ROW.

South Korea again used a very high number of EB visas - 12.6k.

Spec, thanks this is a great post from you. Ball Park the SOFAD was estimated to be 30-32K so 34K is a fairly reasonable figure. Just like you I would attribute it to porting since last year the local office cases were added to the inventory it is impossible to calculate porting truly just by EB3 inventory reduction.
Coming to the Kazarian memo it slowed down things last year and we got the rewards for it in terms of the 12K extra SOFAD. It is not surprising at all that this year EB1 will use its full quota. There is a very simple analogy to it if there is an accident on an interstate highway temporarily traffic to 5 exits further down considering that as the GC line will be slow however as time elapses by even if that roadblock is there the volume will be same further on assuming that cases are not being denied en-masse just as in this way people would wiggle past that point and speed. With time attorneys would have also mastered the intricacies of the memo, the real impact of this memo is possibly to EB1-A cases and partly to Eb1B, however since more than 50% of EB1 is actually EB1C which is slowly rising the impact of the Kazarian memo will really go away.
Now coming to this year in Feb and March it is almost certain that the approval limits for EB2 I/C certainly exceeded the SOFAD because if we were to have 34 - 12 (EB1 no SOFAD) = 22K we have already had that kind of approvals this year. Congratulations to everyone who got approved and to everyone who got their EAD / AP's because if things were to be exactly calculated there is now way that the dates would have gone that far, considering the demand destruction at 0.75 – 0.8. Collateral damage is those individuals who had earlier PD's and are still waiting. This quarter will be dull for EB2 I/C as they will probably issue more EB2 ROW and EB1 approvals this is fairly evident on Trackitt. Talks of EB2 ROW retrogression are extreme. In the last quarter I believe we can get another 4-5K SOFAD from EB1, EB2 Row and EB5.

[nishant2200]

Teddy, thanks for your post.

One another point I was thinking of is, if EB2IC is made U temporarily, and then gates opened in the last quarter, maybe just last two months, to grab some pre-adjudicated inventory and apply the spare little bit from EB1,EB5,EB2ROW, it would favor a bit the original EB2IC folks vs porter folks. Because Porting would be essentially not possible during the periods of time EB2IC is U, and when the gates open for a little bit, it's easier to approve the pre-adjudicated apps, vs the porting apps, in which case there are two things: either the EB3 485 was already applied during the July 2007 fiasco, in which case even for porter, it's faster but still I would like to say slower than pre-adjudicated app, and another case is where there is no Eb3 485 yet as the PD of Eb3 was such that could not be applied during 2007.

Spec, thanks this is a great post from you. Ball Park the SOFAD was estimated to be 30-32K so 34K is a fairly reasonable figure. Just like you I would attribute it to porting since last year the local office cases were added to the inventory it is impossible to calculate porting truly just by EB3 inventory reduction.
Coming to the Kazarian memo it slowed down things last year and we got the rewards for it in terms of the 12K extra SOFAD. It is not surprising at all that this year EB1 will use its full quota. There is a very simple analogy to it if there is an accident on an interstate highway temporarily traffic to 5 exits further down considering that as the GC line will be slow however as time elapses by even if that roadblock is there the volume will be same further on assuming that cases are not being denied en-masse just as in this way people would wiggle past that point and speed. With time attorneys would have also mastered the intricacies of the memo, the real impact of this memo is possibly to EB1-A cases and partly to Eb1B, however since more than 50% of EB1 is actually EB1C which is slowly rising the impact of the Kazarian memo will really go away.
Now coming to this year in Feb and March it is almost certain that the approval limits for EB2 I/C certainly exceeded the SOFAD because if we were to have 34 - 12 (EB1 no SOFAD) = 22K we have already had that kind of approvals this year. Congratulations to everyone who got approved and to everyone who got their EAD / AP's because if things were to be exactly calculated there is now way that the dates would have gone that far, considering the demand destruction at 0.75 – 0.8. Collateral damage is those individuals who had earlier PD's and are still waiting. This quarter will be dull for EB2 I/C as they will probably issue more EB2 ROW and EB1 approvals this is fairly evident on Trackitt. Talks of EB2 ROW retrogression are extreme. In the last quarter I believe we can get another 4-5K SOFAD from EB1, EB2 Row and EB5.

[vizcard]

Is there any data to show how many of the GC's assigned came from a EB3-EB2 conversion? Also how this will factor into the next round of GC approvals in Q1'13. I am guessing there have been a significant number of 140 portings during the last 6 months, I wonder if that will affect our projections.

Apologies, if this has been discussed already...

Not sure what significant means but I would assume that the rate at which porting happens will stay the same.

[mbasense]

Not sure what significant means but I would assume that the rate at which porting happens will stay the same.

vizcard, by significant i assumed there would be enough portings to affect the projected original EB2 visa allocations... thanks for the reply

[goforgreen]

... Talks of EB2 ROW retrogression are extreme. In the last quarter I believe we can get another 4-5K SOFAD from EB1, EB2 Row and EB5.

Teddy thanks for your post. You always explain things in easy to understand terms.

Please continue to post in this forum, we need the support of gurus like you to continue on this journey till the destination is reached.

[TeddyKoochu]

H1B amendment is generally required only in case of 'material' change. Whether your move from one client to another client qualifies for 'material' change- your company lawyer should be able to guide you.

Sun that has been a grey area and also each case may be different, different attorneys and companies work on it differently. Recently the H1B form itself was amended to cater to H1B amendments. Most consulting companies just file a revised LCA but that may not be entirely correct as the term material change is itself very loosely defined and open to interpretation. Material change literally may mean changes in Salary or work description some people also believe location or client. All this is part of making life difficult for people on H1B especially for consultants full time employees would not have any problems. It all started in 2009 initially just in CSC when they would give extensions only till the term of the contract, then VSC started enforcing it. Then client letters were mandated. After that came the infamous E2E memo. My views maybe biased because Iam a consultant myself. Personally before getting GC I wanted to change my client as well but just wanted to stay away from this mess of filing H1B amendment because this in fact is virtually a new petition. Best to consult a good attorney on the individual case. Interestingly this is one of the reasons of demand destruction especially in the case of consultants because of so many hurdles to clear.

[suninphx]

Sun that has been a grey area and also each case may be different, different attorneys and companies work on it differently. Recently the H1B form itself was amended to cater to H1B amendments. Most consulting companies just file a revised LCA but that may not be entirely correct as the term material change is itself very loosely defined and open to interpretation. Material change literally may mean changes in Salary or work description some people also believe location or client. All this is part of making life difficult for people on H1B especially for consultants full time employees would not have any problems. It all started in 2009 initially just in CSC when they would give extensions only till the term of the contract, then VSC started enforcing it. Then client letters were mandated. After that came the infamous E2E memo. My views maybe biased because Iam a consultant myself. Personally before getting GC I wanted to change my client as well but just wanted to stay away from this mess of filing H1B amendment because this in fact is virtually a new petition. Best to consult a good attorney on the individual case. Interestingly this is one of the reasons of demand destruction especially in the case of consultants because of so many hurdles to clear.

T, agree to most of what you have said. Essentially we both are suggesting the same thing - consult attorney.

On DD - curiously waiting for some real numbers

While we are on topic - have there been any cases where therewas RFE at I485 stage because amendment was not filed? I remember there were multiple threads on trackitt where people got RFE about not amending LCA (have not seen one recently) ...but most people were through I guess...I could be wrong.

[TeddyKoochu]

T, agree to most of what you have said. Essentially we both are suggesting the same thing - consult attorney.

On DD - curiously waiting for some real numbers

While we are on topic - have there been any cases where therewas RFE at I485 stage because amendment was not filed? I remember there were multiple threads on trackitt where people got RFE about not amending LCA (have not seen one recently) ...but most people were through I guess...I could be wrong.

Thanks. coming to DD even by the inventory the OR for Nov filers was around 0.7, inventory beyond that point was really incomplete. I think if there were any issues even for Nov filers then the OR would be higher we definitely know that 5-10% people file late. So a centrist value for Nov filers would be .75. However demand destruction would be more for dec and jan filers when the perm issues really were at their peak. Now with so many cases approved it will be really hard to get to a correct figure because the last inventory was incomplete and he next one will not have the approved cases. The one qualitative indicator though that the dates have moved back to Aug 07 does seem to indicate that atleast for 2007 cases DD is not extreme something like .5 to .65. Overall I think probably .75 will be a good number to stay with even for Dec and Jan filers, let’s see though what the next inventory says.

[suninphx]

Thanks. coming to DD even by the inventory the OR for Nov filers was around 0.7, inventory beyond that point was really incomplete. I think if there were any issues even for Nov filers then the OR would be higher we definitely know that 5-10% people file late. So a centrist value for Nov filers would be .75. However demand destruction would be more for dec and jan filers when the perm issues really were at their peak. Now with so many cases approved it will be really hard to get to a correct figure because the last inventory was incomplete and he next one will not have the approved cases. The one qualitative indicator though that the dates have moved back to Aug 07 does seem to indicate that atleast for 2007 cases DD is not extreme something like .5 to .65. Overall I think probably .75 will be a good number to stay with even for Dec and Jan filers, let’s see though what the next inventory says.

OR of .75-.8 (including porting) sounds a reasonable estimate to me. I susptect though, there will be no connection (yet again) between actual number and what CO does next. And as long as it benefits more people we should happy.

[Spectator]

sportsfan,

Personally, I hate those spreadsheets that people have set up.

They add nothing that Trackitt can't do already and a lot of people don't enter their details on Trackitt itself.

The February spreadsheet may have nearly 600 entries, but Trackitt currently has 740, as you can see from the figures I maintain.

I agree with others that the overall OR appears to be in the 0.75 - 0.85 region.

[TeddyKoochu]

OR of .75-.8 (including porting) sounds a reasonable estimate to me. I susptect though, there will be no connection (yet again) between actual number and what CO does next. And as long as it benefits more people we should happy.

Sun .75 - 0.8 is a good figure porting inclusive. It’s very hard to separate porting and the figures anyway are not high. The way things are going they are shuttling between extremes as in too low or too high. Things will settle down to reality soon.

[TeddyKoochu]

Some thoughts:

1. DD might be high, but they might be REALLY out of the hard numbers, so even 1 approvable case in August would force the date to where it is right now. Unless some spillover comes in Q4, I think we can call this inning over.

2. As you say, after December 2007, dates should surge ahead because DD would be higher. CO himself says that he wants to move the dates close to May 2010 in FY 2013. It may not happen in October, but having a date in 2009 at the start of FY 2013 would not be surprising.

3. Can't we calculate the DD from the trackitt proportion of approved cases? Like x% of trackitters got approved, and that represents 10K (more or less)...so the total cases in the system = 10K*100/x. I however want to stress that this will be a high number, because mostly people with complicated cases are prevalent on trackitt. People who have straight cases rarely go there or enter their details.

On this front, the February filers have maintained quite an impressive spreadsheet to track their progress, and close to 600 people have made entries in it.

4. We will get much better numbers starting PDs 2009 onward because they will be reflected in inventory more accurately and eventually the demand date. 2008 numbers will always remain a little hazy.

Sports thanks for your detailed thoughts and great presentation. Trackitt representation has been something that has changed drastically over time. When Q started predictions in Jan 2010 the ratio was estimated to be at 26, the current numbers on Trackitt indicate that that ratio is well below 10 now. Another interesting fact is that if you go through Spec's postings this number keeps increasing till the specific date becomes current and cases get approved. Excitement is at such an unprecedented level that the numbers of people on Trackitt are now much more; recently they even had to upgrade their servers to cater to that. So Trackitt even though it is a great sample space should only be used for directional analysis, absolute ratios from there always do not give the correct picture. I made a prediction few months ago that EB1 will not give us any SOFAD this year at that time EB1 usage on Trackitt was at 4 times when compared with a similar period of time last year, probably there is some trigger within the EB1 community to register almost en masse, if we look at the Trackitt data of EB1C in particular it is 90% Indian while actual reality is EB1 India uses just 3K of EB1C (Eb1 India used 6K assuming 50% as EB1C) so the rest of the 17K comes from other countries. Right now for EB2 India people are there in almost unprecedented numbers on Trackitt in fact these figures are higher than any other period of time. So calculating demand destruction using Trackitt is a little hard, you are correct we will see stable figures for 2009 cases to calculate. I do agree that there will be higher demand destruction as we move through 2008 but that will not translate automatically into faster movement in 2008 simply because in 2008 still there are far more cases left than in 2007. Coming to DD itself the OR of .8 represents that starting from one perm which in theory could have been 2.05 485's resulted only in .8 historically this has been closer to 1. Going any lower will be very optimistic though nothing is impossible but as of now the consensus opinion is .75 and the ratio of 1 is history it does not apply to the current time phase.

[imdeng]

Spec - you are usually so proper and elegant and cautious in your prose that it was strange to see you using strong language. I agree that the spreadsheets do not provide much additional analysis beyond what is there in trackitt - but having the data in spreadsheet form does help in doing further analysis, draw charts/graphs, sort data etc. - so it does have some value.

I am amazed that you have been updating your new trackitt statistics every day! I think it is time for us to consider the hypothesis that there might be an army of people behind the username Spectator :-). You are helping a lot of people in deep distress - I hope you get back all you deserve and more for all the good Karma.

Personally, I hate those spreadsheets that people have set up.

[Spectator]

Spec - you are usually so proper and elegant and cautious in your prose that it was strange to see you using strong language. I agree that the spreadsheets do not provide much additional analysis beyond what is there in trackitt - but having the data in spreadsheet form does help in doing further analysis, draw charts/graphs, sort data etc. - so it does have some value.

I am amazed that you have been updating your new trackitt statistics every day! I think it is time for us to consider the hypothesis that there might be an army of people behind the username Spectator :-). You are helping a lot of people in deep distress - I hope you get back all you deserve and more for all the good Karma.

imdeng,

LOL!!!

My concern is that some people, who would otherwise enter their data in the Tracker, don't bother because of those spreadsheets. Irritated would have been a better description.

It's just the one of me I'm afraid.

I agree with you about the spreadsheets and analysis. Even the very basic analysis tools disappeared when Trackitt went to a pay model for certain information. I import the data into Excel directly from the Trackitt Tracker, for that exact reason. I don't even have to type the information like the people maintaining the spreadsheets do.

I'm glad that at least one person looks at the data!

Thanks for the kind wishes.

[Mavrick]

Why this silence?? I guess retrogression has put everyone to hibernation

[vizcard]

Why this silence?? I guess retrogression has put everyone to hibernation

So what are your thoughts on all the matters discussed here ?

[qesehmk]

I think people are digesting the reverse movement. It's understandable since so much expectations were built in by all the forward movement and now suddenly the retrogression.

We saw all of this in 2007. This is quite similar to that. That time they moved dates to 2007 and then retro to Jan 2005 and then kept moving forward slowly. People were really hopeful and some got really lucky then. Some people with 2006 PDs got approved in 2007 itself. But overall the retrogression is there to ensure that people with older PDs get GCs first. Generally - not strictly.

Why this silence?? I guess retrogression has put everyone to hibernation

[qesehmk]

Spec i know you are very particular about not posting valueless things and so you delete what you think doesn't add value. But people value whatever you say anyway. So don't delete your own stuff

p.s. - BTW I feel so clueless about the talk about spreadsheet and all. Where are these spreadsheets? Many times I wonder whether we should setup a tracker here that will give us better data on this forum. But the thought of modifying this forum software sends chills down my spine. This is such a beautiful software - I don't want to screw it up by some custom code.

[qesehmk]

Thanks. I have a different POV. I am all for multiple efforts and the need to have a variety of opinions so that we avoid a single point of failure. But honestly I do think that trackitt is fairly good and I can't think of how I would've done it in any better way.

I think what trackitt folks did not realize (perhaps until we started crunching numbers using their data) was that they were sitting on a goldmine of information. Although the info was not complete - it was still statitistically significant. We have benefitted a lot looking at trackitt data. I hope the basic database stays free for everybody to look at.

The Feb filers have maintained a Google doc that tracks the progress of their cases. They track this document through one of the threads. I see spec's point that maintaining parallel information is unnecessary (and counter productive too) when they could simply update their cases in trackitt itself, where spec and others run queries daily.