Senate CIR Bill Summary & Discussion

[Spectator]

i was reading the section on family visas and i have a few questions about that. i would really appreciate any help from the experts in this forum. i know most of you guys are interested in EB visas but but for those who can help i thank you in advance.

1) in the bill and it seems kind of weird to me that the new allocation of the visas will be 35% for F-1 ( Adult sons and daughter of U.S citizens) and 40% for F-2 (Adult sons and daughters and LPRs). why is it that adult sons and daughters of LPRs will get more visas than adult sons and daughters of U.S citizens?

2) since the bill mentions that any the changes in the visa allocation will take effect 18 months after the enactment of the bill, should we expect the visa bulletin to move at the same current rate for 18 months after the bill's enactment until the new allocations takes place? or will things like visa recapture and other adjustments take effect before that?

3) I've read somewhere that under the new bill, non-immigrant V-Visa will be expended to include adult sons and daughters of U.S citizens and LPRs. this visa will allow those who have been waiting in line for 3+ years to live and work in the U.S while waiting for their priority dates to become current. can anybody confirm that?

keep on_trying,

Welcome to the forum.

Here's my understanding.

1) In the first FY after enactment, tha FB % are as follows:

FB1 - 20% - Unmarried Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens
FB2(B) - 20% - Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent Residents
FB3 - 20% - Married Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens
FB4 - 40% - Brothers and Sisters of Adult U.S. Citizens

In the first FY after 18 months have elapsed since enactment, it changes to:

FB1A - 35% - Unmarried Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens
FB1B - 25% - Married Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens under 31
FB2 - 40% - Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent Residents

I guess it does look a bit odd to have the US Citizen % lower than the LPR one for Unmarried Sons and Daughters. In time, after enactment, this would actually give a better chance of the Son or Daughter coming to the USA before the Parent had waited the requisite time to become Naturalized.


2) Since initially, there are the same number of visas available to fewer Categories, then dates would move more quickly.

The 3 figures are Now: After Enactment: 18 months after enactment

FB1/FB1A - 23,400 ---> 45,200 ---> 56,350
FB2B/FB2 - 26,266 ---> 45,200 ---> 64,400
FB3/FB1B - 23,400 ---> 45,200 ---> 40,250

There are also some measures, using the Merit Based visas, to accelerate clearing the existing FB backlog over time, as well as recapture of "wasted visas".


3) I haven't really looked at the V visa. From a quick look, it applies to:

(i) Subject to section 214(q)(1) and section 212(a)(4), an alien who is the beneficiary of an approved petition under section 25 203(a) as—

(I) the unmarried son or unmarried daughter of a citizen of the United States;
(II) the unmarried son or unmarried daughter of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence; or
(III) the married son or married daughter of a citizen of the United States and who is under 31 years of age; or

(ii) subject to section 214(q)(2), an alien who is—

(I) the sibling of a citizen of the United States; or
(II) the married son or married daughter of a citizen of the United States and who is over 31 years of age.

Group (i) will be employment authorized and can stay until their Immigrant Visa or Adjustment of Status application is denied. They then have 30 days to leave.

Group (ii) have no employment authorization and can only spend 60 days per FY in V status.

The requirement that the I-130 is 3 years old appears to have been removed.

The V visa is Section 2308 starting on page 313 of the CIR Bill.

[Spectator]

I can't find the post now, but I think someone asked how many visas this might be.

That is not as simple as it sounds.

For those that don't know, currently any unused EB visas in a FY are allocated to FB the next FY and
any unused FB visas in a FY are allocated to EB the next FY.

For FB, they don't benefit from this, since the number of IR approvals generally means the calculation results in a figure less than 226,000 and it defaults to the minimum 226,00 allowed.

EB can always benefit from spare FB visas.

So, although visas may be wasted in EB, they have the chance to get them back if FB approvals are lower than their allocation.

a) Going back to 1992, 493.4k EB visas appear to have been wasted.

b) 180k of those have already been recaptured in previous legislation (130 + 50). You could say that 313.4k remain to be recaptured.

However, during that time, FB has also given EB a further 279.9k visas.

So really, the net number to be recaptured for EB is only 33.5k.

Any more than that is really the ultimate con trick, as the antis already know.

In the past, when recapturing visas, Congress has not taken numbers received from FB into account, and I doubt they will this time either.

Disclaimer :- It is extremely difficult to find information for years before FY2000, so there may be some "wiggle room" if my understanding of the numbers available and used in those years is faulty.

From FY1999 onwards, EB has actually received 148k more visas than were wasted, after the 180k previous recapture is factored in.

[rupen86]

I can't find the post now, but I think someone asked how many visas this might be.

That is not as simple as it sounds.

For those that don't know, currently any unused EB visas in a FY are allocated to FB the next FY and
any unused FB visas in a FY are allocated to EB the next FY.

For FB, they don't benefit from this, since the number of IR approvals generally means the calculation results in a figure less than 226,000 and it defaults to the minimum 226,00 allowed.

EB can always benefit from spare FB visas.

So, although visas may be wasted in EB, they have the chance to get them back if FB approvals are lower than their allocation.

a) Going back to 1992, 493.4k EB visas appear to have been wasted.

b) 180k of those have already been recaptured in previous legislation (130 + 50). You could say that 313.4k remain to be recaptured.

However, during that time, FB has also given EB a further 279.9k visas.

So really, the net number to be recaptured for EB is only 33.5k.

Any more than that is really the ultimate con trick, as the antis already know.

In the past, when recapturing visas, Congress has not taken numbers received from FB into account, and I doubt they will this time either.

Disclaimer :- It is extremely difficult to find information for years before FY2000, so there may be some "wiggle room" if my understanding of the numbers available and used in those years is faulty.

From FY1999 onwards, EB has actually received 148k more visas than were wasted, after the 180k previous recapture is factored in.

Ron has previously claimed that there are more than 300k visas to be recaptured. If what you are saying is right and there are only 33k left to be recaptured, it would be real disappointment.

[vizcard]

what would be nice (and I'm not volunteering to do this ), is a timeline of when things "go live" and a yr by yr macro level view of numbers available. For eg, assuming it passes this fiscal year

2014
- EB will have 140K + 120K of which EB1 is exempt, EB2IC gets x and EB2ROW gets y, EB3 gets z
- FB gets xxxx and 1/7th backlog gets cleared

2015
- EB will have (140K + 120K + visa recapture) of which ......

[vizcard]

Ron has previously claimed that there are more than 300k visas to be recaptured. If what you are saying is right and there are only 33k left to be recaptured, it would be real disappointment.

I can't believe theres 300K+ to be recaptured since 1992. That's 15K each year on average. In the last 5 or so years since I've been paying attention, hardly any visas seem to have been wasted (although I don't have actual numbers). That would mean that the 90s and early 2000s lost a lot of visas.

[justvisiting]

Spec, you are right. But theway the bill is written leaves a lot of wiggle room:

B) FISCAL YEAR 2015- For fiscal year 2015, the worldwide level of employment-based immigrants under this subsection is equal to the sum of--
`(i) 140,000;
`(ii) the number computed under paragraph (2); and
`(iii) the number computed under paragraph (3).

`(3) UNUSED VISAS- The number computed under this paragraph is the difference, if any, between--
`(A) the sum of the worldwide levels established under paragraph (1) for fiscal years 1992 through and including 2013; and
`(B) the number of visas actually issued under section 203(b) during such fiscal years.'.

Does "such fiscal years" mean during the sum of those fiscal years OR, does it mean during each fiscal year? If it's the latter, the you could "double recapture"

[Spectator]

I can't believe theres 300K+ to be recaptured since 1992. That's 15K each year on average. In the last 5 or so years since I've been paying attention, hardly any visas seem to have been wasted (although I don't have actual numbers). That would mean that the 90s and early 2000s lost a lot of visas.

vizcard,

From FY2007 onwards, only a net 126 visas have been wasted overall in EB.

During that time, EB has received (and used) 64.3k unused FB visas (including the 18k this year).

[Spectator]

Ron has previously claimed that there are more than 300k visas to be recaptured. If what you are saying is right and there are only 33k left to be recaptured, it would be real disappointment.

rupen,

I'm only saying that would be the case if what actually happens in the current system were taken into account.

Congress has no history of calculating recapture figures that way, so I think an actual figure of 300k is far more likely, even though it is double counting.

[keep on_trying]

keep on_trying,

Welcome to the forum.

Here's my understanding.

1) In the first FY after enactment, tha FB % are as follows:

FB1 - 20% - Unmarried Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens
FB2(B) - 20% - Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent Residents
FB3 - 20% - Married Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens
FB4 - 40% - Brothers and Sisters of Adult U.S. Citizens

In the first FY after 18 months have elapsed since enactment, it changes to:

FB1A - 35% - Unmarried Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens
FB1B - 25% - Married Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens under 31
FB2 - 40% - Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent Residents

I guess it does look a bit odd to have the US Citizen % lower than the LPR one for Unmarried Sons and Daughters. In time, after enactment, this would actually give a better chance of the Son or Daughter coming to the USA before the Parent had waited the requisite time to become Naturalized.


2) Since initially, there are the same number of visas available to fewer Categories, then dates would move more quickly.

The 3 figures are Now: After Enactment: 18 months after enactment

FB1/FB1A - 23,400 ---> 45,200 ---> 56,350
FB2B/FB2 - 26,266 ---> 45,200 ---> 64,400
FB3/FB1B - 23,400 ---> 45,200 ---> 40,250

There are also some measures, using the Merit Based visas, to accelerate clearing the existing FB backlog over time, as well as recapture of "wasted visas".


3) I haven't really looked at the V visa. From a quick look, it applies to:

(i) Subject to section 214(q)(1) and section 212(a)(4), an alien who is the beneficiary of an approved petition under section 25 203(a) as—

(I) the unmarried son or unmarried daughter of a citizen of the United States;
(II) the unmarried son or unmarried daughter of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence; or
(III) the married son or married daughter of a citizen of the United States and who is under 31 years of age; or

(ii) subject to section 214(q)(2), an alien who is—

(I) the sibling of a citizen of the United States; or
(II) the married son or married daughter of a citizen of the United States and who is over 31 years of age.

Group (i) will be employment authorized and can stay until their Immigrant Visa or Adjustment of Status application is denied. They then have 30 days to leave.

Group (ii) have no employment authorization and can only spend 60 days per FY in V status.

The requirement that the I-130 is 3 years old appears to have been removed.

The V visa is Section 2308 starting on page 313 of the CIR Bill.

thank you so much for the explanation. i couldn't have had asked for a better answer.

currently, only spouses and children of LPRs can benefit from a v-visa. there's a requirement for the v-visa that the I-130 application be filed on or before December 21, 2000. according to USCIS website, no visas are being issued since currently there are no I-130 applications pending under the F2A Category for that long . if they expand the categories that could benefit from visa but do not remove this requirement, then only people from Mexico and the Philippines will benefit from it since these are the only two countries with applications pending from before the December 21,2000 required date.

[keep on_trying]

spec,

in the bill it says that they will raise per country limit for family visas from 7% to 15%. i know that this predominantly benefits the countries with the highest number of applications and longest backlog, china, Mexico and the Philippines to be specific. but do you how that affect countries other than china, Mexico, and Philippines? do you think that any increase in the numbers of visas will be offset ( if not demolished) by this increase in per country limit for people who are from the rest of the world?
i have a feeling that raising the per country limit will speed things significantly for people from china, Mexico and Philippines while others have to wait for the same periods if not longer just to bring everyone to the same level.

[Spectator]

thank you so much for the explanation. i couldn't have had asked for a better answer.

currently, only spouses and children of LPRs can benefit from a v-visa. there's a requirement for the v-visa that the I-130 application be filed on or before December 21, 2000. according to USCIS website, no visas are being issued since currently there are no I-130 applications pending under the F2A Category for that long . if they expand the categories that could benefit from visa but do not remove this requirement, then only people from Mexico and the Philippines will benefit from it since these are the only two countries with applications pending from before the December 21,2000 required date.

keep on_trying,

As written, that requirement is removed in the text of the Bill.

[keep on_trying]

keep on_trying,

As written, that requirement is removed in the text of the Bill.

my understanding was that the new bill only expands the categories that can benefit from this visa, but refers to the current law for other eligibility requirements.

[Spectator]

my understanding was that the new bill only expands the categories that can benefit from this visa, but refers to the current law for other eligibility requirements.

keep on_trying,

Not as far as I read it.

The text on pages 313-314 replaces the existing text regarding the V visa.

The current

(V) subject to section 214(q), an alien who is the beneficiary (including a child of the principal alien, if eligible to receive a visa under section 203(d) of a petition to accord a status under section 203(a)(2)(A) that was filed with the Attorney General under section 204 on or before the date of the enactment of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act, if--

(i) such petition has been pending for 3 years or more; or

(ii) such petition has been approved, 3 years or more have elapsed since such filing date, and--

(I) an immigrant visa is not immediately available to the alien because of a waiting list of applicants for visas under section 203(a)(2)(A) ; or

(II) the alien's application for an immigrant visa, or the alien's application for adjustment of status under section 245 , pursuant to the approval of such petition, remains pending.

becomes

(V)(i) subject to section 214(q)(1) and section 212(a)(4), an alien who is the beneficiary of an approved petition under section 203(a) as—

(I) the unmarried son or unmarried daughter of a citizen of the United States;

(II) the unmarried son or unmarried daughter of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence; or

(III) the married son or married daughter of a citizen of the United States and who is under 31 years of age; or

(ii) subject to section 214(q)(2), an alien who is—

(I) the sibling of a citizen of the United States; or

(II) the married son or married daughter of a citizen of the United States 15 and who is over 31 years of age.

Thus, it removes reference to being at least 3 years old and being prior to the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act (LIFE Act of 2000).

December 21, 2000 is the date the LIFE Act was enacted into law when President Bill Cinton signed it. Source: this USCIS page and better still, see this (then INS) Factsheet. It was the LIFE Act that created the V visa originally.

[vgraj1]

Hi Spectator,

According to the testimony given by Brad Smith, SVP of Microsoft, the un-used visa numbers in the employment category was 325,000 (please see his speech extract given below, published by Oh Law Firm). Does this number relate to the period from 1993 to 2013? If the CIR Bill gets passed, what will be the impact on EB2/EB3 priority dates effective October 1, 2014 ?

"I also applaud the provision of the bill that recaptures employment-based green cards that were previously authorized but never used. According to data provided by the Department of State to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman and published in the Ombudsman’s 2010 Annual Report, there were approximately 325,000 employment-based immigrant visa numbers that Congress authorized in previous years but that remain unused."

[Spectator]

Hi Spectator,

According to the testimony given by Brad Smith, SVP of Microsoft, the un-used visa numbers in the employment category was 325,000 (please see his speech extract given below, published by Oh Law Firm). Does this number relate to the period from 1993 to 2013? If the CIR Bill gets passed, what will be the impact on EB2/EB3 priority dates effective October 1, 2014 ?

"I also applaud the provision of the bill that recaptures employment-based green cards that were previously authorized but never used. According to data provided by the Department of State to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman and published in the Ombudsman’s 2010 Annual Report, there were approximately 325,000 employment-based immigrant visa numbers that Congress authorized in previous years but that remain unused."

As I have explained in a recent post, that number is somewhat "smoke and mirrors", because EB has received most of that number back from FB already.

However, if that number was recaptured (as seems likely), everybody would be Current, considering the other provisions, and it would remain so for some time.

300k in the old language represents at least 600k after the Bill, since dependents would no longer count against numerical limitations under the Bill as well.

[vgraj1]

Thanks Spectator. If the CIR Bill does pass through, a decade-old long wait will end for many in FY 2015. Let's keep fingers crossed!

As I have explained in a recent post, that number is somewhat "smoke and mirrors", because EB has received most of that number back from FB already.

However, if that number was recaptured (as seems likely), everybody would be Current, considering the other provisions, and it would remain so for some time.

300k in the old language represents at least 600k after the Bill, since dependents would no longer count against numerical limitations under the Bill as well.

[justvisiting]

Schumer, Durbin, Flake and Graham amendment:

http://www.aila.org/content/fileview...&linkid=261052

Lot's of changes to the STEM provisions, mostly clarifying that they are numerically exempt and the 5 year rule. Haven't looked at changes to the H-1B stuff.

[justvisiting]

Schumer, Durbin, Flake and Graham amendment:

http://www.aila.org/content/fileview...&linkid=261052

Lot's of changes to the STEM provisions, mostly clarifying that they are numerically exempt and the 5 year rule. Haven't looked at changes to the H-1B stuff.

http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=44286 - New Summary from AILA. Pretty good.

[abcx13]

http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=44286 - New Summary from AILA. Pretty good.

I just see the amendment, no summary?

[justvisiting]

I just see the amendment, no summary?

Sorry, wrong link!

Summary:

http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=44283

[bvsamrat]

if CIR passes, can anyone who is staying since 2011 and employed before age 60 or un-employed at age 65 at time of application
, can apply for RPI?
It appears that RPI is 6 year residenecy permit without Visa requirement for travel, hence no I-94?
Why any one would do H1B extension??

Sorry, wrong link!

Summary:

http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=44283

[rupen86]

Sorry, wrong link!

Summary:

http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=44283

Other than exempting US STEM degree holder, is there anything else for us ?

[justvisiting]

Other than exempting US STEM degree holder, is there anything else for us ?

Please see the first posts in the thread. Overall, there is a huge increase in available visas for EB-2 and EB-3.

[rupen86]

Please see the first posts in the thread. Overall, there is a huge increase in available visas for EB-2 and EB-3.

I was referring to the amendments.

[vizcard]

What happens on May 9th ?

Is it the committee mark up or the actual vote? If its the former, when is the actual vote?

I want to see the CBO cost figures that is generally calculated after committee passage.