EB2-3 Predictions (Rather Calculations) - 2013

[MATT2012]

Viz,
Below are my thoughts on processing of porting applications. it is just in formative stages!!
Let us think about porting, by dividing them to possible categories.
a) Individuals, who have already interfiled, last fiscal year waiting for dates to get current again.
These cases I am not considering as porting, as they are part of existing demand.
b) Individuals who pro-actively filed for interfiling even though dates are not current
There is a high probability that USICS did not take any action in majority of these cases and hence not in demand. Once priority dates get current, USICS will take up this applications and either approve or send a RFE. The only difference between this category and pre-approved is USICS did not pre-adjudicate the new EB2 application. Will it delay the application processing more than one week, I am not sure. If by one week, pre-adjudicated applications consume the complete pool of allocated visas, then they will be left over for next fiscal. My thought a high percentage of these applicants will get through in this fiscal.
c) Individuals who filed interfiling due to RFE from USICS
I am hoping that this will already be in demand and pre-adjudicated. USICS procedure for Interfiling doesn’t support it. But I think that this category is already part of demand. Don’t know how, but for the benefit of doubt. This will have same/ similar priority as individuals who filed last year.
d) Individual who are going to interfile when dates are current.
This category do have a higher risk than category b, considering one additional week of processing for physical mailing, scanning, allocating to the visa officer etc.
My conclusion is it will all narrow down to how visa dates are moving. Who will be left out this fiscal will be the people who got RFEs, the unlucky folks whose application was untouched and those cases who did not get through as the dates internally retrogressed. There is higher chance that there will be more porters in this category. I don’t see a way to quantify the impact, as the lead time between pre-adjudicated and porters is only a week or two. yes those porting applicants who come later in the month will be left for the next fiscal.

Hope this makes some sense

The other variable is processing times. If the jumps happen in the Aug and Sep VB, not everyone porting (2004-2007) will have their cases done this year. So while the gross number might be around 5000, the net might be slightly lower. I'm not counting on that but that could factor in.

[vizcard]

Matt,
Thanks for the explanation. I am aware of the mechanics and my only point is that when dates do get current, these porter cases will be inter-mingled with "regular" cases. So unless, there's a separate slot on the shelf (literally) for porter files, these will all be part of one "processing pile". At that point it could be luck of the draw...again literally. I imagine a situation similar to last year where folks got approved out of turn.

The other practicality is the concept of " low hanging fruit". Arguably cases already in "demand data" are the lowest hanging fruit and I could see case officers cranking those out.

Once again, I'm not counting on this yielding any benefit for the sake of calculations but the logistics of processing a case could affect how they are ultimately handled.

[MATT2012]

No clues Viz how USICS is internally managing porting. As you stated, for calculation purposes, it does nt matter, as less porting approvals may end up allocating visas to pre-adjudicated with a slightly later date or vice versa.

Matt,
Thanks for the explanation. I am aware of the mechanics and my only point is that when dates do get current, these porter cases will be inter-mingled with "regular" cases. So unless, there's a separate slot on the shelf (literally) for porter files, these will all be part of one "processing pile". At that point it could be luck of the draw...again literally. I imagine a situation similar to last year where folks got approved out of turn.

The other practicality is the concept of " low hanging fruit". Arguably cases already in "demand data" are the lowest hanging fruit and I could see case officers cranking those out.

Once again, I'm not counting on this yielding any benefit for the sake of calculations but the logistics of processing a case could affect how they are ultimately handled.

[tanu_75]

My 2c. I think lawyer opinion needs to be taken with a fair pinch of salt. In most cases, they have no f**king idea of the models that we as a community have built to predict date movement. All they are good at is relay information about rules and filing tactics etc. In fairness, they don't have the incentive and are probably too busy in paperwork to even bother building prediction models and tracking all the data.

I would trust the models that Spec/Q have pitched and not bother too much about what some lawyer heard etc. (unless CO himself mentions it in the VB). Most likely it looks like EB2I will clean up till mid 2008 this year. i agree with what someone was mentioning earlier about NVC notices. While sometimes they are false positives, they are still fairly good early indicators of VB date movement.

[vizcard]

My 2c. I think lawyer opinion needs to be taken with a fair pinch of salt. In most cases, they have no f**king idea of the models that we as a community have built to predict date movement. All they are good at is relay information about rules and filing tactics etc. In fairness, they don't have the incentive and are probably too busy in paperwork to even bother building prediction models and tracking all the data.

I would trust the models that Spec/Q have pitched and not bother too much about what some lawyer heard etc. (unless CO himself mentions it in the VB). Most likely it looks like EB2I will clean up till mid 2008 this year. i agree with what someone was mentioning earlier about NVC notices. While sometimes they are false positives, they are still fairly good early indicators of VB date movement.

while what you say is true, this particular lawyer was just supposedly relaying info from the meeting with CO. It wasnt his own opinion. I would assume that CO has some idea of what he is doing.

PS: you are up early (or went to bed later depending on where you are)

[qesehmk]

My overall take on this David guy is:

A) In the past CO has given out information to lawyers that turned out completely wrong. (This may have happened by design or not. We will never know).
B) Whatever this particular lawyer has said is so vague and so useless that it's a waste of time to even think about it.
C) The fact that somebody registers just to post this information doesn't pass the smell taste. I would consider it more credible if it had been come from somebody who we knew at least for a few months.

As per predictions ..... I feel just as comfortable with our current prediction since no new information is really available that changes anything.

p.s. - I did see sbhagwat's calculations. I think 40K for ROW is quite a stretch. 26K is usually where they come in at. However it is quite possible that EB3ROW may be moving to EB2 ... just like EB3IC.... but my guess is you have to simply think about it in the same proportion.... not more not less. e.g. If there is 3K indians moving to EB2 from EB3 and if EB3 backlog is 30K (just making this up) ... then the ratio is 10%. So apply the same over entire EB3 because Indians are no special in their desire to move to EB2. After you plug in real numbers .. that should reveal ROW migration to EB2. I am pretty sure that shouldn't exceed 5-6K max.

[Spectator]

My overall take on this David guy is:

A) In the past CO has given out information to lawyers that turned out completely wrong. (This may have happened by design or not. We will never know).
B) Whatever this particular lawyer has said is so vague and so useless that it's a waste of time to even think about it.
C) The fact that somebody registers just to post this information doesn't pass the smell taste. I would consider it more credible if it had been come from somebody who we knew at least for a few months.

As per predictions ..... I feel just as comfortable with our current prediction since no new information is really available that changes anything.

p.s. - I did see sbhagwat's calculations. I think 40K for ROW is quite a stretch. 26K is usually where they come in at. However it is quite possible that EB3ROW may be moving to EB2 ... just like EB3IC.... but my guess is you have to simply think about it in the same proportion.... not more not less. e.g. If there is 3K indians moving to EB2 from EB3 and if EB3 backlog is 30K (just making this up) ... then the ratio is 10%. So apply the same over entire EB3 because Indians are no special in their desire to move to EB2. After you plug in real numbers .. that should reveal ROW migration to EB2. I am pretty sure that shouldn't exceed 5-6K max.

Q,

I agree that, in isolation, we can't give too much weight to this news. There is no context to judge the information and it does not fit with everything we know.

It's a bit unfair to air your reservations about the new user. In fact, sbhagwat also contacted the Law firm and received the same information, so an established member did confirm the news.

Again we have confusion about what ROW means to different people. The 40k figure refers to EB2-WW (ROW-M-P) and certainly is not a stretch for that group this FY. I agree it would be absurd for ROW alone. 26k for ROW as a normal run rate is a bit low IMO. Recently 29-30k has been more normal.

Like you, I see no reason to alter my prediction at this time.

[qesehmk]

It doesn't pass the smell test Spec is all I am saying. Sbhagwat only contacted the lawyer after he read about this lawyer on the forum.

What is unfair to the new user is situation and circumstances and the scant information being posted. If somebody can post scan information - others should be able to at least raise questions!! Be fair to me Spec!!

Q,
It's a bit unfair to air your reservations about the new user. In fact, sbhagwat also contacted the Law firm and received the same information, so an established member did confirm the news.

[Pedro Gonzales]

Lawyers who reply like this will speak the truth and will always have the correct info.

You give them too much credit.
I'll stick with the forum's near-consensus estimates for now.

[suninphx]

It doesn't pass the smell test Spec is all I am saying. Sbhagwat only contacted the lawyer after he read about this lawyer on the forum.

What is unfair to the new user is situation and circumstances and the scant information being posted. If somebody can post scan information - others should be able to at least raise questions!! Be fair to me Spec!!

I agree with Q.

[mailmvr]

Not related to EB2I, but pertains to Immigration. To check the thoughts of Gurus I am posting the link here
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/rub...4/16/id/499727

“In addition to that we’ve gotten rid of the per country quota, one of the things that didn’t make a lot of sense.
We should be able to attract the best and brightest in the world irrespective of what country they’re coming from"

[sbhagwat2000]

No offense taken. For a change I am going to be optimistic. I went back and checked COs predictions in past years like 2010 and found he always speaks in general terms without bringing SO in the conversation. So in 2010 at one point he was saying dates will move by a few weeks. Finally ended up moving by more than a year. So yes I agree with Q this is a very generic statement made by CO if he ever made it. as far as my calculations were concerned yes I was saying EB2 WW. And it reaching 40000 is not a stretch. Just that thinking about it more i think if the demand for WW was so high to reach 40000 CO would have mentioned officialy in the bulletin like EB5 that cutoff would be applied for WW. Lets see where WW ends. Another thing I was looking at tarckitt trends for this month and both WW and EB2 I approvals are way down. hope this trend continues

[sssbpgmgc]

Thank you sbhagwat, I didn't feel good about my post, so I deleted it.

[pseudonym]

Q,

I agree that, in isolation, we can't give too much weight to this news. There is no context to judge the information and it does not fit with everything we know.

It's a bit unfair to air your reservations about the new user. In fact, sbhagwat also contacted the Law firm and received the same information, so an established member did confirm the news.

Again we have confusion about what ROW means to different people. The 40k figure refers to EB2-WW (ROW-M-P) and certainly is not a stretch for that group this FY. I agree it would be absurd for ROW alone. 26k for ROW as a normal run rate is a bit low IMO. Recently 29-30k has been more normal.

Like you, I see no reason to alter my prediction at this time.

My overall take on this David guy is:

A) In the past CO has given out information to lawyers that turned out completely wrong. (This may have happened by design or not. We will never know).
B) Whatever this particular lawyer has said is so vague and so useless that it's a waste of time to even think about it.
C) The fact that somebody registers just to post this information doesn't pass the smell taste. I would consider it more credible if it had been come from somebody who we knew at least for a few months.

As per predictions ..... I feel just as comfortable with our current prediction since no new information is really available that changes anything.

p.s. - I did see sbhagwat's calculations. I think 40K for ROW is quite a stretch. 26K is usually where they come in at. However it is quite possible that EB3ROW may be moving to EB2 ... just like EB3IC.... but my guess is you have to simply think about it in the same proportion.... not more not less. e.g. If there is 3K indians moving to EB2 from EB3 and if EB3 backlog is 30K (just making this up) ... then the ratio is 10%. So apply the same over entire EB3 because Indians are no special in their desire to move to EB2. After you plug in real numbers .. that should reveal ROW migration to EB2. I am pretty sure that shouldn't exceed 5-6K max.

Q, for what it's worth, my intention was to share the information that I had received with the experts on this forum and nothing else.

In all honesty, I have been a silent observer of the forum for the last couple of months or so, and I can tell you for sure that I don't even come remotely close to the amount of knowledge that gurus like you, Spectator, MATT etc. have on this complex and confusing topic, which is why I usually just end up reading most of the time rather than posting. This is the first time I had something to contribute so I registered and shared immediately. Seems like sbhagwat was able to get the same information as well. I just thought I would explain myself so that it does not prevent other newbies from registering and posting any new information that they might have.

Lastly, from some of the other posts, it sounds like CO has made similar comments in the past without divulging complete information, and I certainly hope it is the case this time as well. Also, the attorney website has a breaking news section which seems to be updated with everything except their communication with CO, so I suspect there is something "fishy" about the whole thing, which is why we should probably not give too much weighting to the email correspondence from the attorney, as some of the other posters have suggested.

[qesehmk]

pseudonym, no worries and thanks really for sharing what you thought was valid information. If I were in your position - even I wouldn't know how credible the info would be!

Thanks again and all the best to you and hope to hear more from you!

Q, for what it's worth, my intention was to share the information that I had received with the experts on this forum and nothing else.

In all honesty, I have been a silent observer of the forum for the last couple of months or so, and I can tell you for sure that I don't even come remotely close to the amount of knowledge that gurus like you, Spectator, MATT etc. have on this complex and confusing topic, which is why I usually just end up reading most of the time rather than posting. This is the first time I had something to contribute so I registered and shared immediately. Seems like sbhagwat was able to get the same information as well. I just thought I would explain myself so that it does not prevent other newbies from registering and posting any new information that they might have.

Lastly, from some of the other posts, it sounds like CO has made similar comments in the past without divulging complete information, and I certainly hope it is the case this time as well. Also, the attorney website has a breaking news section which seems to be updated with everything except their communication with CO, so I suspect there is something "fishy" about the whole thing, which is why we should probably not give too much weighting to the email correspondence from the attorney, as some of the other posters have suggested.

[bvsamrat]

IMHO- immediate effect of CIR, new PERMS/I-140s for porting may halt for some time till the dust is settled, mainly US MS STEMS with more than 5 years experiance and still on EB3(there are tons of them). Why waste money now on PERM and other paper work

CO may get bold enough to make bring back dates as of last year, atleast in July-August

You give them too much credit.
I'll stick with the forum's near-consensus estimates for now.

[Spectator]

IMHO- immediate effect of CIR, new PERMS/I-140s for porting may halt for some time till the dust is settled, mainly US MS STEMS with more than 5 years experiance and still on EB3(there are tons of them). Why waste money now on PERM and other paper work

CO may get bold enough to make bring back dates as of last year, atleast in July-August

bvsamrat,

I'm not so sure.

I agree that CIR passing, or the prospect of it passing, will slow down people thinking about starting the porting process.

For FY2013, all porting approvals will be from people who have already completed the process or will do so shortly.

As far as I see, nothing in the Senate CIR proposal affects available visa numbers for FY2013, so CO will still only have 158k to play with for FY2013.

He can't set a Cut Off Date later than there are visas available and he can't over-use the allocation.

So I think it will be what it will be this FY.

[natvyas]

In addition to the above, isnt there a review period of about 3 months after a bill becomes a law wherein the further details related to the implementation of the law are outlined? If that is true then the law will not take affect till 2014, assuming it passes in 3rd QTR this year.

[vizcard]

In addition to the above, isnt there a review period of about 3 months after a bill becomes a law wherein the further details related to the implementation of the law are outlined? If that is true then the law will not take affect till 2014, assuming it passes in 3rd QTR this year.

Every law goes in to Federal Register for public feedback. Since most of the clauses are effective FY15, it doesn't matter. There's an extensive discussion here

[erikbond101]

No new trackitt approvals for EB2-I in past 15 days. What is happening?

[vgraj1]

Hi,

I note that in the CIR Bill as presented by the Senators, spouses and children are not included in the total EB visa quota of 140,000 and 40% goes to EB2.

If this Bill is passed without any substantial amendments, what will be the EB2 India priority date prediction by Dec. 2013?

Thanks!

vgraj1.

bvsamrat,

I'm not so sure.

I agree that CIR passing, or the prospect of it passing, will slow down people thinking about starting the porting process.

For FY2013, all porting approvals will be from people who have already completed the process or will do so shortly.

As far as I see, nothing in the Senate CIR proposal affects available visa numbers for FY2013, so CO will still only have 158k to play with for FY2013.

He can't set a Cut Off Date later than there are visas available and he can't over-use the allocation.

So I think it will be what it will be this FY.

[harry_kris]

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

Another one on trackitt - EB2I - PD Jul 2009. There appears to be no other recent activity, however, received email from NVC. Positive sign? I sure hope so.

[veni001]

Hi,

I note that in the CIR Bill as presented by the Senators, spouses and children are not included in the total EB visa quota of 140,000 and 40% goes to EB2.

If this Bill is passed without any substantial amendments, what will be the EB2 India priority date prediction by Dec. 2013?

Thanks!

vgraj1.

vgraj1,

Please read Spec's response below.

bvsamrat,

I'm not so sure.

I agree that CIR passing, or the prospect of it passing, will slow down people thinking about starting the porting process.

For FY2013, all porting approvals will be from people who have already completed the process or will do so shortly.

As far as I see, nothing in the Senate CIR proposal affects available visa numbers for FY2013, so CO will still only have 158k to play with for FY2013.

He can't set a Cut Off Date later than there are visas available and he can't over-use the allocation.

So I think it will be what it will be this FY.

[bvsamrat]

But if the bill passes without any changes, CO could allot all future quota of FY14 in December 13 itself. As later, this quota would have no meaning and all EB1 numbers could spill over straight - Thiis is what I think. But big IF only if CIR passes w/o changes

[vgraj1]

In case the CIR Bill becomes law before Oct.1, 2013, I guess some of the new provisions, namely exclusion of EB1 and spouses/children from EB visa quota, will become effective immediately, although the visa recapture from 1993 to 2013 will take effect from Oct.1, 2014. Then 56,000 visas (excluding spouses/children) will become available for EB2 in FY 2014. Is this correct? In that scenario, what is the expected EB2I priority date movement by Dec. 2013?

vgraj1,

Please read Spec's response below.