EB2 Predictions (Rather Calculations) - 2012

[openaccount]

Guys

To clear EB2I till Dec07 with current pending inventory 6072 are needed. As dates are going to stay U for Eb2I till Oct2012 when CO has to move dates in Oct atleast 70% of 6072(this could increase if USCIS continues pre-ajudication at current pace)-- 4250 will show up in demand data. Because of what happened this year there might(at this point we can say there won't be any) not be QSP, by the time CO decides to move dates further later in Fy2013 to consume little SO 90% of 6072--5464 will show up in demand data and of those 5464 only 2800 will be approved so still 2664 priior to Dec2007 will be waiting in queue. And this is without adding any EB3-EB2 porting if you add that number it will be close 6k-8k so just to clear Dec2007 we need atleast 7k SO from EB1/EB5/EB4 & EB2ROW if it provides any.

P.S: I am also not happy with these numbers as my PD is May 2008 and it may take at least 2 years to reach that date if current numbers/data trend continues

[feedmyback]

Anyways everything that's happening beats the logic. So with no proper facts to support, I am putting one scenario that comes to my mind. I want Gurus to tell if that could be a possibility.

Suppose if EB2ROW has a cut off date of say 01-01-2011 for the entire FY 2013 (This is purely based on the fact that USCIS can put any date for any category because of lack of transparency). Now, if there were any spillover from EB1, EB4 and Eb5 during FY 2013, would that all go to EB2IC as they are the most backlogged?

Some how I get a feeling that there is an internal agenda to make all EB2 WW move at one pace and remove discrepancies (A slight variant of HR3012 being internally implemented unofficially )). I know it is just wishful thinking. But can any one throw some light on that possibility at least?

[murali83]

Guys

To clear EB2I till Dec07 with current pending inventory 6072 are needed. As dates are going to stay U for Eb2I till Oct2012 when CO has to move dates in Oct atleast 70% of 6072(this could increase if USCIS continues pre-ajudication at current pace)-- 4250 will show up in demand data. Because of what happened this year there might(at this point we can say there won't be any) not be QSP, by the time CO decides to move dates further later in Fy2013 to consume little SO 90% of 6072--5464 will show up in demand data and of those 5464 only 2800 will be approved so still 2664 priior to Dec2007 will be waiting in queue. And this is without adding any EB3-EB2 porting if you add that number it will be close 6k-8k so just to clear Dec2007 we need atleast 7k SO from EB1/EB5/EB4 & EB2ROW if it provides any.

P.S: I am also not happy with these numbers as my PD is May 2008 and it may take at least 2 years to reach that date if current numbers/data trend continues

You are about right.

EB2 China will straightaway go to July 2008 in Oct 2012 if CO allots them their yearly quota in the beginning of the year. When the spillover session starts, since SOFAD is given according to PD's irrespective of the nation in the retrogressed category, I guess all the sofad will come to EB2-I.

If we add some optimism and say
1. Porting maybe just 3-3.5K (So by Last quarter of FY 2013, we will have maybe 6K pending cases before dec 2007 ready for approval)
2. They typically just approve only 80% of the cases (that makes it 4.8K).

So IF we get a 10K sofad, we will still have 5.2K visas for EB2-I in FY 2013. That could get us to around May 2008 dates.

Now getting that 10K sofad might be pretty tough. From Veni's stats, it looks like EB2-ROW might not yield much next year. So better to calculate SOFAD just from EB1, EB4 and 5. I do believe that can reach 10K. The good part is even if EB2-ROW retrogresses on account of its own demand next year, during the spillover, EB2-I will get all the sofad since we have the most backed up PD's. If Eb2-row gives something that is a bonus.

So I think May 2008 can get greened in Fy 2013.

[openaccount]

You are about right.

EB2 China will straightaway go to July 2008 in Oct 2012 if CO allots them their yearly quota in the beginning of the year. When the spillover session starts, since SOFAD is given according to PD's irrespective of the nation in the retrogressed category, I guess all the sofad will come to EB2-I.

If we add some optimism and say
1. Porting maybe just 3-3.5K (So by Last quarter of FY 2013, we will have maybe 6K pending cases before dec 2007 ready for approval)
2. They typically just approve only 80% of the cases (that makes it 4.8K).

So IF we get a 10K sofad, we will still have 5.2K visas for EB2-I in FY 2013. That could get us to around May 2008 dates.

Now getting that 10K sofad might be pretty tough. From Veni's stats, it looks like EB2-ROW might not yield much next year. So better to calculate SOFAD just from EB1, EB4 and 5. I do believe that can reach 10K. The good part is even if EB2-ROW retrogresses on account of its own demand next year, during the spillover, EB2-I will get all the sofad since we have the most backed up PD's. If Eb2-row gives something that is a bonus.

So I think May 2008 can get greened in Fy 2013.

murali-

I think EB2ROW dates should be current, for EB2IC to get any SO from EB1/EB4/EB5 isn't that true? I may be wrong.

If CO wants to apply SO to IC instead of ROW i don't see why he would favor one group over another.For this to happen CO has to repeat similar to what he did earlier this year again next year but during second half of FY2013 when Spill Over starts, move dates drastically for EB2IC and apply SO and then make dates U for entire EB2, I doubt if he will do that, but again anything is possible with DOS/USIC, we won't know until it happens.

[murali83]

murali-

I think EB2ROW dates should be current, for EB2IC to get any SO from EB1/EB4/EB5 isn't that true? I may be wrong.

If CO wants to apply SO to IC instead of ROW i don't see why he would favor one group over another.For this to happen CO has to repeat similar to what he did earlier this year again next year but during second half of FY2013 when Spill Over starts, move dates drastically for EB2IC and apply SO and then make dates U for entire EB2, I doubt if he will do that, but again anything is possible with DOS/USIC, we won't know until it happens.

openaccount,

Let me clarify myself,

Starting FY 2013 Eb2-row will become current on its own account. Lets saying during the year, EB2-ROW(M&P included) have a demand more than the 34.4K they are entitled to, then either CO will pull out the country that is causing that and keep the rest current or impose a cod on the group. Now this has nothing to do with EB2-IC, this will just happen on their own account due to high demand (as some gurus are expecting).

If that happens, when the fall down from EB1 or eb4 or 5 happens towards the end of fy 2013, all countries in EB2 are treated as retrogressed (if cod on eb2-row is imposed, or if a country is pulled out). In that event, the extra numbers are distributed to the earliest priority dates, so it will to come eb2-I, since eb2-I will have the oldest set of priority dates.

So, this theory holds in my opinion if eb2-row has demand greater than 34.4K.

[suninphx]

One more approval EB2I (porting)-

http://www.trackitt.com/usa-discussi...page/last_page

[kd2008]

openaccount,

Let me clarify myself,

Starting FY 2013 Eb2-row will become current on its own account. Lets saying during the year, EB2-ROW(M&P included) have a demand more than the 34.4K they are entitled to, then either CO will pull out the country that is causing that and keep the rest current or impose a cod on the group. Now this has nothing to do with EB2-IC, this will just happen on their own account due to high demand (as some gurus are expecting).

If that happens, when the fall down from EB1 or eb4 or 5 happens towards the end of fy 2013, all countries in EB2 are treated as retrogressed (if cod on eb2-row is imposed, or if a country is pulled out). In that event, the extra numbers are distributed to the earliest priority dates, so it will to come eb2-I, since eb2-I will have the oldest set of priority dates.

So, this theory holds in my opinion if eb2-row has demand greater than 34.4K.

Murali you are incorrect. Spec and Teddy discussed this a while a back.

Quoting Teddy:

My understanding is that spillover happens to the most retrogressed countries in any category if and only if all countries in that category are current. So basically until EB2 ROW is current things will be quite bad because not only will EB2 ROW consume its own quota but will absorb any Eb1 and Eb5 spillover as well.
Here is the INA 202 Link - http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-1016.html

What Teddy means by "if and only if all countries in that category are current" is that the category itself is current except for the retrogressed countries.

SO say, spillover were to happen to EB3, then it would first go to EB3ROW to make it current and when EB3 as a category is current it would go to EB3I which is retorgressed.

[murali83]

Murali you are incorrect. Spec and Teddy discussed this a while a back.

Quoting Teddy:

What Teddy means by "if and only if all countries in that category are current" is that the category itself is current except for the retrogressed countries.

SO say, spillover were to happen to EB3, then it would first go to EB3ROW to make it current and when EB3 as a category is current it would go to EB3I which is retorgressed.

KD,

I think this should be discussed further. If EB2-ROW demand is high in a year on its own account then the countries like south korea or others causing it should be pulled out first to see if EB2-ROW can be current after that. Only if EB2-ROW as a whole is exceeding 34.4 K with no country having exceeded its annual quota of 7% should the spill over be given to them. Otherwise it is a fraud that USCIS is committing by keeping countries that are exceeding the 7% limit inside EB2-ROW and still giving them spillover ahead of other retrogressed countries if such a situation arises.

[Kanmani]

This spillover topic is already discussed few months back .

http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showth...6261#post26261
http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showth...6275#post26275
http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showth...6289#post26289

[kd2008]

KD,

I think this should be discussed further. If EB2-ROW demand is high in a year on its own account then the countries like south korea or others causing it should be pulled out first to see if EB2-ROW can be current after that. Only if EB2-ROW as a whole is exceeding 34.4 K with no country having exceeded its annual quota of 7% should the spill over be given to them. Otherwise it is a fraud that USCIS is committing by keeping countries that are exceeding the 7% limit inside EB2-ROW and still giving them spillover ahead of other retrogressed countries if such a situation arises.

Murali, this was discussed last year. From legal standpoint DOS is not committing fraud because of the way 7% limit is worded and applied. 7% limit is not a quota nor is it a category specific thing. It first takes a look at overall FB + EB total for the 7% and then delves into the category to see if it needs to be retrogressed. South Korea never reaches 7% limit when you look at their FB+EB totals.

Thanks, Kanmani! There you go, Murali. Please feel free to continue to discuss this. We want to make sure we are not missing anything.

[openaccount]

KD,

I think this should be discussed further. If EB2-ROW demand is high in a year on its own account then the countries like south korea or others causing it should be pulled out first to see if EB2-ROW can be current after that. Only if EB2-ROW as a whole is exceeding 34.4 K with no country having exceeded its annual quota of 7% should the spill over be given to them. Otherwise it is a fraud that USCIS is committing by keeping countries that are exceeding the 7% limit inside EB2-ROW and still giving them spillover ahead of other retrogressed countries if such a situation arises.

This is true only if countries like south korea exceeds 7%, other wise if none of ROW countries does not exceed 7% but they could exceed 34.4k together(similar to 2011 where EB2ROW consumed close to 35K) if this is the case then EB2ROW would get any SO first before it spills down to EB2IC

[IsItWorthTheTrouble]

I have been following this thread for the last week or so & found it to be very informative. So, took the initiative of putting in my 1st post.

I see lot of discussion on the dates in FY13 but can anyone surmise the following:

1. What dates EB2-I will open in FY13?

2. What dates will EB2-I end with in FY13?

3. Can EB2-ROW COD remain even in FY13?

Thanks.

[murali83]

Thanks KD and Kanmani,

Very useful info. So now we are back to hoping that they dont reach the 34.4K. Oh boy

[harapatta2012]

I have been following this thread for the last week or so & found it to be very informative. So, took the initiative of putting in my 1st post.

I see lot of discussion on the dates in FY13 but can anyone surmise the following:

1. What dates EB2-I will open in FY13?

2. What dates will EB2-I end with in FY13?

3. Can EB2-ROW COD remain even in FY13?


Thanks.

If divide between 3 scenarios for EB2I for 2013(start oct 2012):
Optimistic - Open@ July 2007 & Close @ Dec 2008
Pessimistic - Open@ July 2007 & Close @ Dec 2007
Realistic -Open@ July 2007 & Close @ Jun-Aug 2008 ( I wish Aug 2008)

Well, this can be said as based on
-my understanding from different gurus n this forum
- on historic SO, movement data
-and assuming 2011 was exception in many ways

Few thoughts:
-We should give some 'weight' to what CO said in earlier VB. That is " effort will be taken to move dates to May 2011....". Agreed that he can always counter argue this by saying 'this or that is higher or more than expected But still, he knows and has even have this in writing in VB. Atleast his optimism has some +ve surprise in store.

-SO all agree will be lower, disagreement is over how much, 40%, 50%, 75% lower? Difficult to say but surely between 30-60% lower.

-This year movement cannot be that illogical. I think we are missing something. Two things actually:
First, CO says demand was more than expected. I read on 'Leavy Blog' where he repeatedly mentioned that EB3-EB2 porting was lot more than expected. This could be significant.
Second, The porting cud be higher actually in EB2-WW as well. Dont forget EB3-WW is also messed up.
Combine these and they can be significant.

- Unfortunately, I see agreement now on SO to EB-IC likely will happen in April -june 2013, little in july-sep.

99% EB2-ROW should be cleared in oct 2012 itself.

[TorreyPines]

Anyways everything that's happening beats the logic. So with no proper facts to support, I am putting one scenario that comes to my mind. I want Gurus to tell if that could be a possibility.

Suppose if EB2ROW has a cut off date of say 01-01-2011 for the entire FY 2013 (This is purely based on the fact that USCIS can put any date for any category because of lack of transparency). Now, if there were any spillover from EB1, EB4 and Eb5 during FY 2013, would that all go to EB2IC as they are the most backlogged?

Some how I get a feeling that there is an internal agenda to make all EB2 WW move at one pace and remove discrepancies (A slight variant of HR3012 being internally implemented unofficially )). I know it is just wishful thinking. But can any one throw some light on that possibility at least?

Well, fooling EB2-ROW won't be as easy and undramatic as fooling EB2I. CO is better off screwing us than finding new avenues. Back to my den.

[Spectator]

I've posted a discussion piece in my post on page 1 of this thread which outlines one possible approach to FY2013 and why it is might happen. It is limited in its scope.

If you want to discuss it, please try not to quote the whole piece, otherwise the replies will get very messy.

[kd2008]

I've posted a discussion piece in my post on page 1 of this thread which outlines one possible approach to FY2013 and why it is might happen. It is limited in its scope.

If you want to discuss it, please try not to quote the whole piece, otherwise the replies will get very messy.

Spec, excellent analysis as usual.

My counter point: Given the PERM filing trend this year and the PERM approval trend in last couple of months, and the EB2-ROW retrogression, the likely hood of any spillover is zero. Yup, zero! We may only have fall down. So only EB1/4/5 will give what they will and it is impossible to tell the figure a year in advance. A generous contribution would be 8K from these categories. So EB2IC may get 5.6K+8K=13.6K if it is a generous year. If the demand from EB2-ROW is heavy then the number may drop further but no lower than 5.6K.

[murali83]

I've posted a discussion piece in my post on page 1 of this thread which outlines one possible approach to FY2013 and why it is might happen. It is limited in its scope.

If you want to discuss it, please try not to quote the whole piece, otherwise the replies will get very messy.

Spec,

Thanks for your input, really appreciate it.

Your analysis uses inventory data, I assume 90% of it will convert into demand and 85% will get approved usually. So maximally 80% of inventory gets approved.

Would it be reasonable to expect that porting will balance the gap between inventory and demand. So even if demand is lower than inventory, porting will make in a way make effective demand equal to or more than inventory.

Is this the reason you used the full inventory for calculation and No porting?

[GhostWriter]

Spec, thanks for providing this. I was one of the many eagerly waiting for your views on 2013. One question, i know EB2-I and EB2-C have had the same cut-off date so far because of the common spillover. But if the yearly allocation for EB2-C can move their dates a lot further then do they still need to have the same cut-off date ?. EB3-C,I,M,P have different cut-off dates but then they don't get any spillovers. So does use of spillover makes it necessary to have a common cut-off date for EB2-I,C.

I've posted a discussion piece in my post on page 1 of this thread which outlines one possible approach to FY2013 and why it is might happen. It is limited in its scope.

If you want to discuss it, please try not to quote the whole piece, otherwise the replies will get very messy.

[Spectator]

Spec, excellent analysis as usual.

My counter point: Given the PERM filing trend this year and the PERM approval trend in last couple of months, and the EB2-ROW retrogression, the likely hood of any spillover is zero. Yup, zero! We may only have fall down. So only EB1/4/5 will give what they will and it is impossible to tell the figure a year in advance. A generous contribution would be 8K from these categories. So EB2IC may get 5.6K+8K=13.6K if it is a generous year. If the demand from EB2-ROW is heavy then the number may drop further but no lower than 5.6K.

kd,

Appreciate the comments.

I think it just we use different terminology.

SPILLOVER = Fall Across & Fall Down to me.

I agree that Any Fall Across may be difficult to come by.

I had to choose a number for SOFAD. I realise the limitations of choosing a particular number, which is why I didn't even take Porting into account. Frankly, I didn't want to use too scary a number.

It was more the overall approach because of China's situation that I was trying to explain.

[Spectator]

Spec, thanks for providing this. I was one of the many eagerly waiting for your views on 2013. One question, i know EB2-I and EB2-C have had the same cut-off date so far because of the common spillover. But if the yearly allocation for EB2-C can move their dates a lot further then do they still need to have the same cut-off date ?. EB3-C,I,M,P have different cut-off dates but then they don't get any spillovers. So does use of spillover makes it necessary to have a common cut-off date for EB2-I,C.

GhostWriter,

If both EB2-C and EB2-I are using Spillover, then they must have the same Cut Off Date.

If only EB2-I is using Spillover, then EB2-I Cut Off Date can not be greater than EB2-C. However, EB2-C can be greater than EB2-I.

This second situation happened in the May 2011 VB when EB2-C had a COD of 01AUG06 based on using the initial allocation, while EB2-I had a COD of 01JUL06 based on using spillover visas. CO explained this in the Notes:

Allocation of “otherwise unused” numbers in accordance with Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 202(a)(5)

INA Section 202(a)(5) provides that if total demand in a calendar quarter will be insufficient to use all available numbers in an Employment preference, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits.

Based on current levels of demand, there will be otherwise unused numbers in the Employment First and Second preferences. Such numbers may be allocated without regard to per-country limits, once a country has reached its preference annual limit.

Since under INA Section 203(e) such numbers must be provided strictly in priority date order regardless of chargeability, greater number use by one country would indicate greater demand by applicants from that country with earlier priority dates.

Based on amount and priority dates of pending demand and year-to-date number use, a different cut-off date could be applied to each oversubscribed country, for the purpose of assuring that the maximum amount of available numbers will be used.

Note that a cut-off date imposed to control the use of “otherwise unused” numbers could be earlier than the cut-off date established to control number use under a quarterly or per-country annual limit.

For example, at present the India Employment Second preference cut-off date governs the use of numbers under Section 202(a)(5), India having reached its Employment Second annual limit; the China Employment Second preference cut-off date governs number use under the quarterly limit, since China has not yet reached its Employment Second annual limit.

The rate of number use under Section 202(a)(5) is continually monitored to determine whether subsequent adjustments are needed in visa availability for the oversubscribed countries. This helps assure that all available Employment preference numbers will be used, while insuring that numbers also remain available for applicants from all other countries that have not yet reached their per-country limit.

[openaccount]

I had to choose a number for SOFAD. I realise the limitations of choosing a particular number, which is why I didn't even take Porting into account. Frankly, I didn't want to use too scary a number.

Spec,

Isn't USCIS doing interfiling for EB3-EB2 porting as soon as I-140 EB2 is approved, if interfiling happens at time of I-140 approval then even if CO decides to make EB2IC dates U again some time next year(if CO wants to keep porting within limit) as he did this year porting numbers will be added right away as soon as I-140 approval happens. So porting numbers will be added to EB2I inventory right away when ever dates move forward.

[Spectator]

Spec,

Thanks for your input, really appreciate it.

Your analysis uses inventory data, I assume 90% of it will convert into demand and 85% will get approved usually. So maximally 80% of inventory gets approved.

Would it be reasonable to expect that porting will balance the gap between inventory and demand. So even if demand is lower than inventory, porting will make in a way make effective demand equal to or more than inventory.

Is this the reason you used the full inventory for calculation and No porting?

murali,

Anything like that is a coincidence.

In fact, I tried to deliberately not use "real" figures, yet still keep them semi-sensible, because everyone will have a different view.

It is supposed to be a more top level overview. Possibly the idea can be refined, once we have better data. I am still in the mode of running "what if" scenarios to explore the possibilities for myself.

[GhostWriter]

Thanks for confirming Spec. You did not mention any regulatory change like HR3012 under tailwinds. Do you consider it quite unlikely even after the presidential elections are over.

GhostWriter,

If both EB2-C and EB2-I are using Spillover, then they must have the same Cut Off Date.

If only EB2-I is using Spillover, then EB2-I Cut Off Date can not be greater than EB2-C. However, EB2-C can be greater than EB2-I.

This second situation happened in the May 2011 VB when EB2-C had a COD of 01AUG06 based on using the initial allocation, while EB2-I had a COD of 01JUL06 based on using spillover visas. CO explained this in the Notes:

[vizcard]

Spec,
I think your analysis makes sense although as KD points out "Fall Across" seems tough.

I do have a question about the real implications of porting. First of all, would it be fair to say that most current porters are already covered in the inventory ? Also, given that we are current "U", any new porting candidates cannot file concurrent 140/485s which in turn implies they cannot be pre-adjudicated. Therefore, the 485 processing time applies to them. So assuming dates move to Nov 2007 in Q1, porters with PD in that period may not become "demand" until atleast Q2. So whatever the porting number we assume, only 9 months of that would be relevant.

Or am I completely nuts?