For EB3-ROW-M-C, there is only demand data until July 2007. No-one else has been able to file their I-485. There may be some demand data for CP cases, not sure how that works.Originally Posted by geeaarpee
For EB3-ROW-M-C, there is only demand data until July 2007. No-one else has been able to file their I-485. There may be some demand data for CP cases, not sure how that works.
Spec I was looking at Oct 2011 VB that puts EB3ROW at Dec 2005. That's how I calculated 2 years. But even if you considers 2 years movement in 1.5 year in EB3 category it tells you that this is just not possible without EB3ROW porting.
I no longer provide calculations/predictions ever since whereismyGC.com was created.
I do run this site only as an administrator. Our goal is to improve clarity of GC process to help people plan their lives better.
Use the info at your risk. None of this is legal advice.
Forum Glossary | Forum Rules and Guidelines | If your published post disappeared, check - Lies and Misinformation thread
The Demand Data basically contains no numbers for EB3 beyond July 2007.
No AOS case can ever have been submitted and pre-adjudicated and very few (if any) CP cases with a PD beyond July 2007 can have become "documentarily qualified" since NVC won't have sent out the packets previously.
Look at EB3-P. They had 38k CP cases at NVC in November 2012. The Demand Data showed about 7k at about the same time (and probably half of those are AOS cases). So about 3.5 -4k of those 38k were actually in the Demand Data.
I mentioned post 2008 because WW PERM didn't start declining substantially until then. 2009 was low for everybody due to the recession. After that many more people seem to be applying under EB2, so it is possible EB3 numbers are now much lower.
I don't think CO will reach the interesting dates this time round.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
Hi Spec,
Can you please provide a link which has the above stats. I'm wondering if there is a way to estimate demand for F2A category since those cases are CP and I'm guessing those should be in the doc as well?
To answer my own questions, is this the link you are looking at ?
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/WaitingListItem.pdf
gc_soon,
Yes, that the one.
Spec
The risk of EB3-ROW visas being wasted is not negligible. Would they spill over to EB3-I or EB3-P first?
EB3-P and EB3-M until they hit the overall 7% limit, then EB3-I.
EB3-M use is rather limited by sharing the same Cut Off date as EB3-ROW and probably won't be a factor.
Given that FB-P uses 7% then EB-P has about 11k total visas available across the 5 Categories. EB1-P, EB2-P, EB4-P and EB5-P might use 4.6k, leaving about 6.4k to EB3-P and still stay within the overall 7% limit. That needs to happen within not more than the EB3-WW Cut Off Date.
In practice, EB3-ROW numbers are reduced by that factor.
In theory, EB3-ROW has 32.8k visas but that would probably be reduced to about 29.5k by EB3-P use.
If the above figures were correct, and if EB3-ROW use was less than 29.5k, then the spare visas would be available for EB3-I to use.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
Whichever way the USCIS defines it, there is a reason there is a classification / prioritization. There should never be a situation where a lower classification gets priority over a higher classification. As for the experience/education bit, I challenge that assertion. An EB2 with 10-15 yrs experience will NOT get approved as an EB1 (in 99% cases).
I'm not sure what your comment about doctors, researchers, etc. implies. The reason there are categories is so that the theoretical needs get met in order of priority. Therefore a lower priority shouldnt get ahead of a higher priority under any circumstances.
EB1 is a totally different animal, the terms for EB1 is so vague and again it goes back to the weird laws governing that category. For instance, US MBA is not part of STEM but a Multi-National manager is part of EB (I recently posted this in the CIR section too). So it all goes back to the WEIRDNESS!
Earlier, I was talking specifically about EB2 and EB3.
Exactly Spec! Don't you think there should be a better way for CO to know what the demand should be instead of him moving the dates and even that won't be exact #s in a year or two as more and more people will either port or leave the country or get married outside the country and come back with more dependents. Don't you think CO is repeating his mistakes again? All these causes USCIS to prick the low hanging fruits as it approaches the end of the fiscal. I'm not speaking "FOR" USCIS here as they are the culprits first place - by not providing the data needed for CO to do a better job. Either CO should be part of USCIS or USCIS should take over the visa # allocation process (I know it causes other issues but the current issue is far worse than what we are facing right now with this absurd date movements)
CO could atleast look at 485 inventory for some signal. Last year the 485 pending inventory showed big numbers for EB2-I, but CO didnt seem to look at it but just the demand data and say "extremely low demand". CO also gave false hopes that effort will be made to move dates back to May 2010, only to keeo dates frozen at Sep 2004 for long time.
In this day and age, it's just unimaginable that an idea about demand can not be obtained without moving dates erratically. Just USCIS and DOS should make effort to track and report certain things. But unfortunately such effort may not be a priority, as long as DOS doesnt waste visa numbers which seems to be their priority. End of rant.
I think you said it yourself - USCIS need to provide better information to DOS.
It is entirely within USCIS capability (or should I say should be) to provide the numbers from approved I-140 by Category, Country of Chargeability and PD (in the same way as DOS compile it for CP cases once USCIS send the approved I-140 or I-130 to NVC).
DOS would then have very good visibility of likely future demand (including many of the dependents) without having to force the issue by moving Cut Off Dates forward to force USCIS to adjudicate I-485 cases.
USCIS have consistently shown an unwillingness to compile the information required and requested by DOS.
USCIS were essentially forced to compile and publish the Inventory after the events of July 2007. I took them 2 years to do so. It also forced them to actually start pre-adjudicating more cases.
I can't think of a worse agency to run the visa allocation system than USCIS (at one time, DOL would have been pretty close). They can't even coordinate over a few Service Centres and Field Offices in the same Country, let alone with Consular Posts around the World.
The predecessor to USCIS lost the battle as to who controlled visa allocations a long time ago. They have acted like sore losers ever since and done nothing to suggest that the original decision was anything other than the correct one.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
There are a lot of topics going on which I missed, but a few thoughts.
a) EB3 ROW: I do think that controller will not repeat fully what he did with EB2-I last fiscal. He will open the flood gates slowly. I was checking the labor data from fiscal year 2008, the current date movement may help him use the visas in EB3 without wastage. As labor data is very old, there may have a lot changes( porting, abandonment etc), a couple of months more will be sufficient. But in order to build a little more demand he may open it up further to possibly mid to late 2008. As the demand will only show up fully only by late July, August is possibly the last month of movement. So he is looking into building inventory for rest of this fiscal and may be one more fiscal.One more month will help us conclude his direction fully.
b)EB2-I and EB2-C: I fully agree with Specs thoughts that atleast for this fiscal EB2-C will not share the same priority date with EB2-I. So any spillover left after EB2-ROW usage will fully become availiable to EB2I.
I'm not sure I follow your argument entirely.
The latest USCIS Inventory available was from January 2012 and that showed just 3.7k 2008 PD cases. The numbers for Jan-Mar 2008 (most of which had been Current over a month) were not that high. They were only about 40% of the likely true figure.
Only when the May Inventory was published did the figures become more apparent (and by that time a large number of PD 2008 cases had already been approved).
I remember we discussed it at the time - USCIS appeared to have a lag time of up to 2 months before receipts were transformed into any useable numbers. We could see some of that from the Trackitt data, which suggested far higher numbers than USCIS were reporting.
If USCIS were suggesting further forward movement in May, they clearly had absolutely no idea of the numbers in their own system.
I don't want to sound like an apologist for DOS - I am sure there are things they could have done better. The whole episode is a classic example of Garbage In Garbage Out.
Since USCIS account for around 90% of EB approvals, it is their responsibility to provide better information.
DOS knew their own exact usage for CP (barring returns) a month in advance of the VB taking effect.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
Spec,
Appreciate the the reply. I guess I must be wrong about the pending inventory availability.
If the inventory was published only in May 2012, then it makes sense, it must be already too late for CO then. However, I'm not sure if CO looked at the pending inventory as he said every effort would be made to bring back COD to May 2010. Just saying DOS should make some effort to guesstimate demand based on pending inventory and PERM data. It's not as good as data that can be reported by USCIS directly. But still if CO took those into consideration(if not already) it would be better.
Based on the latest Demand Data could the better informed analyse the SOFAD? Thanks
Matt,
To finally get back to your question.
It is a bit weird isn't it?
Up until the March DD the figures were either below or very close to the January Inventory numbers.
Then we had the that very odd April DD, where EB2-I yearly figures were increasing and decreasing all over the place (2004, 2005 & 2006 all went up, 2007 decreased and 2008 decreased a large amount).
I don't think anyone knows what was going on there. Maybe the comparison is not apples to apples any longer.
Of course, it also assumes that the USCIS Inventory had captured all the cases and was accurate.
I really don't know.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
The PERM Processing Times have been updated as of April 1, 2013.
There is also a new PERM Factsheet with the Q2 figures.
Some quick figures from the PERM Factsheet:
Receipts
YTD - 36,660 (20% Higher than FY2012)
Q2 receipts were 15% higher than Q1.
Processed
YTD - 26,479
Q2 processed were 15% lower than Q1.
Certified
YTD - 21,149
Q2 Certified were 25% lower than Q1.
% in Analyst Review increased from 48% at the end of Q1 to to 58% at the end of Q2.
% in Audit decreased from 37% at the end of Q1 to to 30% at the end of Q2.
% in appeal decreased from 14% at the end of Q1 to to 11% at the end of Q2.
The % where Minimum Education Requirements was Advanced Degree increased from 45% at the end of Q1 to to 53% at the end of Q2. Given a further 38% required at least a Bachelors Degree, the number applying under EB2 must be well over 60% and nearer 70%. I think the 45% in Q1 is a mistake and actually the number are all pretty much unchanged in Q2.
The Top Country of Citizenship remains India and increased from 57% at the end of Q1 to to 59% at the end of Q2.
PERM Processing Times
Regular - remains unchanged at about 4 months.
Audit - increases one month to about 9 months.
Appeal and Government Error times remain unchanged.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
Just a few observations:
Between October EB2I Inventory (2005-2010) and Jan Inventory (2005-2010) there are only a minor net difference. 41735 Vs. 41777. That only means USICS stacked at some place and later re-distributed. Or there were multiple I-140’s involved as priority date was not properly re-captured. February Demand data came very close to the number (41700-275) which is 41400. In March the numbers went above (42100) and in April it came back to 41600 and in May 42200. I am ignoring 2004 demand as the dates are mostly current. So there is an approximate net addition of 400 applicants between Oct/Jan inventory and May demand.
Now let us compare for the same period in in EB3I which is 2005 onwards. Between October EB3I Inventory (2005 onwards) and Jan Inventory (2005 onwards) there are net difference of 470. 21554 Vs. 21084. So it is clear that the deduction of 470 was not immediately visible in EB2 inventory which is only 30 additions. The demand data for EB3I of 21475 in November vs. 21000 in February is also very close to inventory numbers. But when it comes to demand data May EB3I for the same period is 20550. A reduction of 550 applicants. So in this fiscal there was a total reduction of 470 +550, roughly 1000 reductions in EB3.
I am not sure whether I should co-relate the additions in EB2 to the deductions in EB3. From out of the initial 470 reductions in EB3 there is very close co-relation of 400 additions. Is it possible that demand reduces faster but addition to the new category takes time? The thought does not support USICS established procedures, but Just an observation
Thanks Spec for posting it...
Spec,
I was checking the labor data, I did see a drop in EB2-ROW approvals!!
MATT
You'll have to expand on what you were looking at for that to have any meaning!
I see that EB2-WW account for 2% less Certifications at the end of Q2 than they did at the end of Q1 according to the PERM Factsheet. Overall, I would be more worried that receipts at this stage are 20% higher than last year (36,660 vs 30,400). China and India do not solely account for that rise, so eventually WW numbers may actually be higher.
I do know that the number of ROW PERM Certifications were lower in Q1 2013, but that was due to a slowdown in DOL processing speed.
The underlying monthly numbers for PD2012 were actually very similar to PD2011.
The number of Certifications in Q2 is far lower than even Q1 despite an increase in receipts (see my edit to the original post). I'm a bit shocked at how poorly DOL performed in Q2. I doubt they processed many cases beyond a PD of 2012.
The slowdown might be helpful to EB2-I for this FY (I'm certainly keeping an eye on it and will see what the Q2 Disclosure data has to say), but it will just delay the pain to a future FY if CIR does not pass.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
Spec, check the below numbers I derived from the data for EB2 ROW. The 2nd Qtr had dropped to 1667. I have used 100% conversion factor for I485, and to accomodate dependants I doubled it. I have taken five quarters of data to accomodate the extra quarter for this fiscal.
2012 3rd Qtr---------- 3622
2012 4th Qtr.--------- 4218
2013 1st Qtr. -------- 2286
2013 2nd Qtr.-------- 1667
2013 3rd Projected ----2948
Total-------------------14741
NIW--------------- 2948
Total-------- 17690
I485 Conversion----35379
The increase in receipts and reduction in approvals is worrysome. This may have an impact next fiscal. There is possibly one more quarter of EB-WW labor approvals which has the possibility of consuming visa numbers this fiscal. Hopefully CIR will come as the savior!!
Hi Spec,
Is Bachelors Degree+ 5 Years experience also considered as advance degree for PERM? The document did not mention that way, but is 'nt that the Labor Defenition?
MATT
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
