EB2 Predictions (Rather Calculations) - 2012

[Spectator]

I find it hard to believe that every year every row country use up less than their quota and still the visas are exhausted.

nathang,

It is a good job they don't!!

160 times 7% would be 1,120% !!!

That is the reason why EB3-ROW are stuck. They have the demand, but after China, India, Mexico and Philippines have used their share, only about 24k are left before reaching the 40k limit set for EB3 overall.

That leaves most ROW Countries receiving less than 1% despite having considerably more demand.

[qesehmk]

Some of them actually have. e.g. S korea in EB2, Canada, England, S korea in EB1. However, the decision to split a country away from ROW on its own is a bit mysterious one. E.g. couple of years back they did that for Haiti in FB category. However same is not true for the ones I mentioned above. So probaby they look for presistence of the situation rather than one off years.

But coming back to our discussion - I do not agree that ROW is retrogressed because EB2IC was given more than its due. I would actually argue the otherway round. Somehow EB2ROW couldn't utilize and hence EB2IC received its quarterly spillover and now suddenly they are seeing EB2ROW demand which makes them believe EB2ROW will need retrogression. In fact - to be honest it is also quite possible that EB2ROW can retro on its own. There doesnt have to be an EB2IC in picture for that.

I also disagree that SO will go to country with most backlog. What may be more accurate is that SO will go to country with oldest backlog.

Now that is also not quite true. What IMHO is absolutely true is - within EB2 limit the visas are allocated to EB2 by country limit followed by PD. However once that EB2 limit is reached - every single visa must be allocated based on PD only.

And we are going to reach that situation if EB2ROW is retrogressed sufficiently long enough. The question is - what will happen to the EB5 and possible EB1 SO. Will it go to EB2ROW and make it current before it comes to EB2IC or will it satisfy EB2ROW until EB2 category limit is reached (or EB2ROW becomes currnt) before reaching EB2IC.

My 2 cents are on the latter

Q
I get what Spec is saying and it makes sense. historically, i doubt ROW countries hit their per-country limit. If they did hit their limit, they would have their own COD. So if ROW is retrogressed it means that EB2IC was given more than they should have been and hence as a whole has been retrogressed. So the SO would go to the ROW country with the most backlog, make its way across orher ROW countries and then to EB2IC. Theoretically that makes sense under current rules but this gives everyone a sneak preview of the world under HR3012.

This is an interesting perspective. By law I don't think there is any category called EB2ROW and hence they cannot create one. But if it is retrogressed, when visas become available, there must be different COD for different countries based on the demand from each country and the available visas. This will be a nightmare situation for the CO. But if the dates do retrogress, the other perspective is that everyone is retrogressed and hence any visas should be given to the oldest applicants based on PD, which means IC will get it.

Not sure how the interpretation will work. If EB3 is any indication, then WW will get the spillovers and then to IC. But I am guessing that even EB3ww may not be right. I find it hard to believe that every year every row country use up less than their quota and still the visas are exhausted.

I agree. EB2ROW is not a category. But practically it becomes one with 72% of the allocation.

SO doesnt come to EB2IC (or the countries with the oldest backlog first). EB2ROW will get their fair share of 72% and then the remaining SO will go by PD. Again .. my opinion only.

[vizcard]

It really is a what-if scenario.
1. If EB2ROW is retrogressed because they indeed don't have enough visas (because of over-allocation to EB2 I/C) AND each ROW country has not reached their per-country limit, THEN it goes to the ROW country with the oldest backlog (Q - I just equated oldest to longest but I see there could be a difference).
2. IF EB2ROW is retrogressed as a precautionary measure and if EB2 I/C has not been overallocated, then it will follow the normal course of action.

Hopefully, we get a pleasant surprise with EB1 and don't get an unpleasant one from EB2ROW.

[vishnu]

i've been out, but just to confirm, the last visa bulletin says that people can still file eads based on the may 2010 cut off date? so the retrogression applies to actual GCs but may 2010 or before can still get EADs... v interesting times...

[Spectator]

Spec,

I am not convinced with the theory of spillover visas going to WW .

When Co announced spilling 12000 EB1 visas last year, there were a lot of arguments among chinese that the spillover should be divided equally among the two countries as 6000 each. The law firms openly adviced them about the spill over rules , visas are issued purely based on priority date, irrespective of the usage and limitation.

The Numerical limit of 7% is the upper limit beyond which no country is allotted visa under normal quota and it is not necessary that the WW countries must reach 7% before allowing the otherwise unused visas to most backlogged countries.

I am really confused .

Kanmani,

The key phrase in the law that allows visas to be allocated to Countries that have already reached their per Country limit is

If the total number of visas available ..... exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas

Countries who have not yet reached the per Country limit and have demand meet the definition of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas.

If the demand from EB2-WW exceeds the number of spare visas visas available, then none will be available to Countries that have reached the per Country limits already.

The discussion about the 12k last year was after it was determined that there were no other qualified immigrants entitled to the visas. This year is a completely different scenario.

[Kanmani]

Spec , Ok for my better understanding please consider the following scenario.

EB1 is retrogressed back to 2011.
EB1 is getting unused visas from Eb4 and Eb5. How do you allocate visas ?
(a) PD seniority wise
(b) allocate visas to countries starting from least usage

[username]

Sorry did not realize below link is already posted....

Visa Bulletin For May 2012: http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bul...etin_5692.html

[srimurthy]

How can USCIS still keep accepting the I-485 applications when the dates are retrogressed to Aug'2007???? Because we can only file I-485 if the PD is current!
********
USCIS has indicated that it will continue accepting China and India Employment Second preference I-485 filings based on the originally announced April cut-off date.
**********

[Spectator]

Spec , Ok for my better understanding please consider the following scenario.

EB1 is retrogressed back to 2011.
EB1 is getting unused visas from Eb4 and Eb5. How do you allocate visas ?
(a) PD seniority wise
(b) allocate visas to countries starting from least usage

Kanmani,

In that situation:

All Countries compete equally on PD basis until any reach the Per Country limit.

Once a Country approaches the per Country limit and it is determined that insufficient spare visas are going to be available to exceed it, a separate Cut Off Date is established for the Country, or it becomes Unavailable if no more visas are available.

Any remaining visas are competed for strictly by PD by the remaining Countries. Further Countries would have a separate Cut Off Date established as they reached the per Country Limit.

In EB1, based on FY2010 figures, India and China would be the first to have separate Cut Off Dates Established, followed by Great Britain, Canada and South Korea.

If the number of visas available to EB1 was exhausted before the end of the FY, then the whole Category would be made Unavailable.

Add to that the complication that the 7% limit is an overall limit, not necessarily a Category limit.

Although it is calculated over EB and FB, for simplicity let's consider it 7% of 140,000 or 9,800 visas in EB. In FY2010 there were more EB visas so 7% represented 10,546.

Neither Great Britain (5,635) or Canada (5,893) approached that number across EB1-EB5 in FY2010, so they could receive more than the nominal 3,016 visas in EB1 and still have not breached the 7% limit irrespective of whether spare visas were available if they had the earliest PD.

[bieber]

I think crux of the problem is overallocation to EB2IC, If infact EB2 ROW gets a COD and no country from ROW got atleast 7%, still the SO from EB1/EB5 will go to EB2IC not to ROW.

[jackbrown_890]

http://www.dhs.gov/files/statistics/...ons/LPR11.shtm
check Table 10 for 2011 numbers by country of birth...

[jackbrown_890]

Yes you are correct..my mistake..33 EbI total and 17 EBC total..
check,,Table 7 for type and class

I see EB2-I total used only 33,587 in that table (which points to 20-22K for EB2-I). I also don't see EB classification.

[imdeng]

Hey - now we have a concrete idea of the dependent ratio for EB2. The table 7 clearly shows that on EB2 in FY2011, there were 33,055 primary AOS applicants, 23,106 spouses and 8,979 children. This gives us a dependency ratio of 1.971 i.e 1.971 GC numbers needed per primary AOS applicants in EB2. This is quite a bit lower than the ratios we had assumed before - I believe the consensus had formed around 2.125 with several of us recommending 2.25.

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s...11/table7d.xls

[murali83]

Thats a good find imdeng. On a lighter note that ratio might be even lesser as we progress further becos these days indian matrimony market is closed for NRI's

[la_2002_ch]

As per Table 7:

Employment-based preferences 139,339 124,384 14,955 (Total of 139,339 VISAS used under EB Category)

So does this mean over 600 VISAS wasted last FY?

Hey - now we have a concrete idea of the dependent ratio for EB2. The table 7 clearly shows that on EB2 in FY2011, there were 33,055 primary AOS applicants, 23,106 spouses and 8,979 children. This gives us a dependency ratio of 1.971 i.e 1.971 GC numbers needed per primary AOS applicants in EB2. This is quite a bit lower than the ratios we had assumed before - I believe the consensus had formed around 2.125 with several of us recommending 2.25.

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s...11/table7d.xls

[imdeng]

Overall, 2011 was a pretty good year for EB2 -
1. EB2 consumed 66.8K visas i.e ~26.8K spillover from other categories.
2. This was made possible mainly by EB1 which gave ~14.7K spillover (consumed 25.3K visas)
3. EB4 gave ~3.3K
4. EB5 contributed ~6.7K.
5. Unfortunately EB3 was given the short end of the stick and consumed only 37.2K and hence contributed 2.8K to the spillover.
6. We lost ~0.7K visas due to allocation below the limit.

PS> I am eagerly awaiting Spec's take on this data. Spec - please enlighten us with your insights.
PPS> Thanks JackBrown for posting the link to the data.

[kd2008]

Spec,

I was wondering if you were able to establish the higher EB1 demand this fiscal year from the published data.

Yes, USCIS may be clearing up its pipeline and backlog. But it should not result in 15K more adjudications this fiscal year unless the demand goes up. So I was wondering where did Mr. CO conclude that EB1 will end up using all its quota this year.

Thanks for helping me understand, and sorry if this has been discussed before. I have been busy and not able to follow the forum regularly.

[kd2008]

Thank you Spec. I am still not convinced but this time fault is completely mine by not agreeing with the confusing policy . Let me wait for the real time distribution to see how it goes.

Kanmani, this is what I think Spec may be trying to say:

When spillover from EB1 come down, it applies to EB2 as a whole category. This is one step in it self.

Now within the category there are two tests to determine how the visas are granted (Note, I say visas and not spillover):

1) Are there countries who have demand but not yet consumed the 7% limit? If yes, then visas will be go to them first.

Now say, there is spillover remaining after the above test has been met. So we move to the next test:

2) Are there countries who have demand and have met their 7% limit? If yes, then visas will go according to PD only and not country.

[imdeng]

EB1 consumption will be higher this year not because EB1 demand is high this year (although that still may be true but not by a large amount) but because of slow processing of EB1 last year, a good portion of last year's demand has shifted to this year.

Spec,

I was wondering if you were able to establish the higher EB1 demand this fiscal year from the published data.

Yes, USCIS may be clearing up its pipeline and backlog. But it should not result in 15K more adjudications this fiscal year unless the demand goes up. So I was wondering where did Mr. CO conclude that EB1 will end up using all its quota this year.

Thanks for helping me understand, and sorry if this has been discussed before. I have been busy and not able to follow the forum regularly.

[imdeng]

Yes - this is the correct explanation. Another thing to keep in mind that 7% is for overall EB+FB visa consumption. As an illustration, South Korea keeps getting (much) more than 2.8K in EB3 since it is still below the 7% limit because of its ridiculously low FB visa consumption.

Kanmani, this is what I think Spec may be trying to say:

When spillover from EB1 come down, it applies to EB2 as a whole category. This is one step in it self.

Now within the category there are two tests to determine how the visas are granted (Note, I said visas and not spillover):

1) Are there countries who have demand but not yet consumed the 7% limit? If yes, then visas will be go to them first.

Now say, there is spillover remaining after the above test has been met. So we move to the next test:

2) Are there countries who have demand and have met their 7% limit? If yes, then visas will go according to PD only and not country.

[GC-Utopic]

Spec,

I am not convinced with the theory of spillover visas going to WW .

When Co announced spilling 12000 EB1 visas last year, there were a lot of arguments among chinese that the spillover should be divided equally among the two countries as 6000 each. The law firms openly adviced them about the spill over rules , visas are issued purely based on priority date, irrespective of the usage and limitation.

The Numerical limit of 7% is the upper limit beyond which no country is allotted visa under normal quota and it is not necessary that the WW countries must reach 7% before allowing the otherwise unused visas to most backlogged countries.

I am really confused .

Kanmani, I completely agree with you here,

Diversity should be limited to normal quota, ( DV lottery is present to supplement low usage in EB)

pure Economics of supply demand should dictate the whole of EB category, if not, atleast with SOFAD. I am sure if the law is written now in the post spillover days, it would be different.

[openaccount]

WOW, EB2IC consumed around 45.5k in 2011
EB2-------------------------------66831
EB2I-----33587-2800(EB3I)-----30787
EB2C---17544-2800(Eb3C)-----14744

EB2ROW-------------------------21300
EB2IC----------------------------45531

[kd2008]

WOW, EB2IC consumed around 45.5k in 2011
EB2-------------------------------66831
EB2I-----33587-2800(EB3I)-----30787
EB2C---17544-2800(Eb3C)-----14744

EB2ROW-------------------------21300
EB2IC----------------------------45531

This calculation may not be correct. Please refer to imdeng's post earlier in this thread. I don't think EB2IC consumed that many visas. According to imdeng it was close to 32K to 33K. I don't know for sure. Others please verify.

[imdeng]

To get EB2I numbers you need to subtract EB1I from the 30.8K figure that you have. Similarly for EB2C. Since we don't have those numbers, I don't think we can do a country breakdown of EB2 at this point.

WOW, EB2IC consumed around 45.5k in 2011
EB2-------------------------------66831
EB2I-----33587-2800(EB3I)-----30787
EB2C---17544-2800(Eb3C)-----14744

EB2ROW-------------------------21300
EB2IC----------------------------45531

[kd2008]

EB1 consumption will be higher this year not because EB1 demand is high this year (although that still may be true but not by a large amount) but because of slow processing of EB1 last year, a good portion of last year's demand has shifted to this year.

Yes, I agree with you. But according to the October 2011 inventory there were 14K pending, and October 2010 inventory there were 7.6K pending. So an addition of 6.4K cases this year due to larger backlog of cases. The new demand for this fiscal year will have to jump 15K (last year's spillover) - 6.4K (extra backlog from last year) = 8.6K for Eb1 to consume all its quota. Compared to last year's consumption of 25K, this is a 8.6K/25K = 34.4% jump. Quite unlikely. As Spec has said earlier, ultimately, we may see a small spillover from EB1 at the end of the year.