EB2-3 Predictions (Rather Calculations) - 2013

[vizcard]

Spec - my comment was in response to Q's quarterly spillover comment. By rules, everything you say is right... but CO has bent the rules before .. and I'm not sure there are repurcussions to him. Last year was an example where he messed up big time.

In any case, I don't see any change in trends for EB2I as far as how spillover is assigned. If you don't get it one summer, you wait for the next one.

[gckabaayega]

Does anyone know what to write in the EVL for self employment? Currently, I do not have enough revenues and I am not paying myself a salary. What kinda EVL can I send out in case the RFE is about EVL?

[qesehmk]

Spec - agree that 27% is upper limit. But then why does the law talk about "Quarterly spillover"? Because if there is no minimum then DoS can (and unfortunately has been) adjusting the min level to ensure there is no spillover and some countries remain chronically backlogged. Tell me I am wrong on this one.

The law doesn't explicitly specify minimum levels but the fact that the law expects quarterly spillovers implies that the intention of the lawmakers was for USCIS to use 1/4th of the limit, ideally 27% to ensure visas are not wasted at the end of the year and keep a lid on quarterly usage at 27% to ensure visas are not all frontloaded either.

It is much more unsettling that Visa Office interprets law as if its ok to use less than 25% visas while there are countries that are severely severely backlogged. That is outrageous.

Q,

That is not correct either.

There is no requirement to use 27% in each of the first 3 quarters - it is a only maximum that may not be exceeded. The law does not mention minimum use, or that it is required to be met.

It is a moot point for this year anyway. The 27% limit appears to have been reached in each of the first 2 quarters and EB2 received far in excess of 27% of their allocation in each of the first 2 quarters. It doesn't appear it will be reached in the third quarter for EB.

vizcard,

I'm not sure whether by Category you mean EB1 etc or ROW etc.

A COD for EB2-ROW would generally require EB2-I to be made Unavailable if they had already used the 7% allocation.

By law, spare (or otherwise unused visas) are only available to Countries that have already reached the 7% limit when there is no further demand from Countries who have not yet reached their 7% limit.

If a COD is imposed on those Countries, then by definition there are insufficient visas available to meet that demand and therefore no spare visas can be available. Potentially, EB2-M and EB2-P could have a COD (although that is unlikely due to the overall 7% interpretation), but unless EB2-ROW remains Current, there can be no spillover to EB2-I.

But similarly, if a COD was imposed on EB1, then that would mean that there were no spare visas to Fall Down. The only potential spare numbers would be Fall Across from EB2-WW.

I hope I understood your post correctly.

[IsItWorthTheTrouble]

I've a july '08 Eb-2 pd & missed filing 485 in Jan '12. Is there a chance that CO might move dates past july '08 by sept vb? If yes, could he hold it or even go further than july '08 in FY '14?

[Spectator]

Spec - agree that 27% is upper limit. But then why does the law talk about "Quarterly spillover"? Because if there is no minimum then DoS can (and unfortunately has been) adjusting the min level to ensure there is no spillover and some countries remain chronically backlogged. Tell me I am wrong on this one.

Q,

You are wrong on this one.

[qesehmk]

I am afraid not Spec. The data is out there.

Q,

You are wrong on this one.

[Spectator]

I am afraid not Spec. The data is out there.

Q,

Unfortunately it is not.

Quite apart form the fact that 27% has been reached in each of the completed quarters to date, there are times when the figure might not reach 27%.

The law allows DOS to use estimates of future use.

Let's take the present case for EB3-ROW. Dates have advanced such that new applications are needed. They can't be approved immediately and that will result in a demand lull. Nonetheless CO knows demand from them is likely later in the year.

He must account for that fact, even if it means the 27% limit is not reached in a quarter because those visa numbers will be required in a later quarter. Similarly, he can't allocate unused EB1 visas per quarter if he believes the demand will increase later in the year, as it has done in the past.

Ensuring that each Country receives the initial visa number they are allowed by law has a higher priority than allocating spare visas. Quite rightly, CO will not allocate them until he has a reasonable certainty that they will actually not be needed. Having said that, I am surprised that he did not release any in the July VB.

You appear to be advocating giving those visas away due to fluctuations in the demand pattern.

That would not be correct and is not what the law intended.

[qesehmk]

Similarly, he can't allocate unused EB1 visas per quarter if he believes the demand will increase later in the year, as it has done in the past.

...

You appear to be advocating giving those visas away due to fluctuations in the demand pattern.

...
That would not be correct and is not what the law intended.

Spec - thanks. Now at least we are talking to the heart of the matter. Yes I am advocating exactly that. DOS acting on belief that demand will increase is injustice to backlogged countries. The repurcussions of EB2ROW staying current with median wait times increases of 10-20% are much less severe than EB2I "artificially" retrogressing into 2004 because of DoS' decision to act on its belief that demand for EB1 will increase.

I think it is illegal and unjust.

[desitiger]

Does this mean dates will move to June 2008?

[immitime]

Spec - thanks. Now at least we are talking to the heart of the matter. Yes I am advocating exactly that. DOS acting on belief that demand will increase is injustice to backlogged countries. The repurcussions of EB2ROW staying current with median wait times increases of 10-20% are much less severe than EB2I "artificially" retrogressing into 2004 because of DoS' decision to act on its belief that demand for EB1 will increase.

I think it is illegal and unjust.

Q,

After the portings and (still happening don't you think USCIS should reduce that demand on the EB-3 queue.. Portings are counted on EB3 and also for EB2 queue. Only focusing on EB2 alone do not do good for the immigrant community.

I think it is Illegal and unjust done for years for the people on Eb3 queue.

[qesehmk]

immitime - the double count doesn't really hurt anybody since visas are not double allocated to those two cases. So the dates will progress exactly as they would when demand is not double counted.

I agree that focusing on one category/country alone doesn't do much good to overall immigrant community. That's why CIR is so critical because it helps everybody.

Q,

After the portings and (still happening don't you think USCIS should reduce that demand on the EB-3 queue.. Portings are counted on EB3 and also for EB2 queue. Only focusing on EB2 alone do not do good for the immigrant community.

I think it is Illegal and unjust done for years for the people on Eb3 queue.

[immitime]

immitime - the double count doesn't really hurt anybody since visas are not double allocated to those two cases. So the dates will progress exactly as they would when demand is not double counted.

I agree that focusing on one category/country alone doesn't do much good to overall immigrant community. That's why CIR is so critical because it helps everybody.

Q,

What do you mean by double count doesn't really hurt? Visas are not double allocated of course but EB3 Priroty Date can move right, as per the June 7th demand data EB3 India until Jan 1st 2004 is around 10,000. For example if they takeout the porting cases the count can be 4000 or 6000 right.
That will move the EB3 India PD more faster do you agree?

CIR.. is like the grass which never reaches the cow.. I personally have no expectation on that bill. If it happens it happens that is it. Every year they come with this kind of bill. I will always say some people get benefits due to spillover. While others are waiting with an EAD with PD 2003. That is injustice to the core.

[qesehmk]

Since most of the EB3 have already filed 485 (i.e. dates upto mid 2007), the advance in date means nothing to them. Of course those who missed the boat will be benefited from the advanced dates. Now given how predictable EB3I has become (because all they are ever going to get is quota - nothing more + new demand is zero for the period of time where approvals are taking place), the advancement in dates is already happening faster than it would've been in lieu of portings. So we are really talking about a very small number of people who haven't filed 485 and who will get benefitted for a relatively small window of time. But i guess -- still yes - if DoS USCIS could understand this .. they should really act on it and eliminate the double count.

Q,

What do you mean by double count doesn't really hurt? Visas are not double allocated of course but EB3 Priroty Date can move right, as per the June 7th demand data EB3 India until Jan 1st 2004 is around 10,000. For example if they takeout the porting cases the count can be 4000 or 6000 right.
That will move the EB3 India PD more faster do you agree?

CIR.. is like the grass which never reaches the cow.. I personally have no expectation on that bill. If it happens it happens that is it. Every year they come with this kind of bill. I will always say some people get benefits due to spillover. While others are waiting with an EAD with PD 2003. That is injustice to the core.

[Kanmani]

immitime,

I don't know the case of uscis, but Eb3 porting numbers are not double counted by DoS, they stay in the Eb3 queue until a visa number is requested by the uscis. Whenever eb2 is retrogressed, porting cases are neither eb3 nor eb2 , they stay in between for sometime .

I completely agree with you that this is a hindrance to the Eb3 CoD movement.

[Silverlining027]

http://immigration-law.com/

OH Law Firm Speculating: EB2 I PD: Aug 2008 in Aug/Sep VB.

[vizcard]

http://immigration-law.com/

OH Law Firm Speculating: EB2 I PD: Aug 2008 in Aug/Sep VB.

I'm assuming that's august 1 2008. .. woe is me

[Kanmani]

Sorry for the confusion - what i meant was that they are taken out of Demand i.e pre-adjudicated and back in "pending" i.e. not pre-adjudicated ... not specifically referring to the documents.

The response accuracy % (or some better term for it) won't affect consumption of visas ... it'll affect who consumes them though. For example,

Demand up to March 2008 - 10000 (made up numbers). If you go by straight demand, if you have 10000 spillover, people up to March 2008 will get visas.
Now assume 50% of the people get RFEs and 80% of those people will respond and their responses will get processed in time. True demand that'll consumer spillover reduces to 9000. that'll mean there will be 1000 visas for folks post March 2008.

That's why % of RFEs sent out and % processed are all both items (I've lumped them together as response accuracy %). This is not a new phenomenon but its especially relevant this year due to the wide range of spillover projections and the timing for releasing those.

Agreed partially.

You are calling it as a theoretical process ( pre-adj to non pre-adj for sometime) , with an assumption that this is a behind the scene procedure carried out without affecting the Demand Data , Do you agree that the DoS is uninformed of this final stage verification ?

If the answer is 'Yes' , then the DoS would assign visa numbers as per their protocol (Visa Number to Alien Number basis from the existing DD) on 1st August including the RFE cases .

The USCIS must hold the visa number of the RFE recipients at least for 84 days to return them to DoS , Meanwhile the sept bulletin is due which would make the DoS to move the dates as per their data not including the potential returns from the uscis.

As per your example, my claim is that those 1000 will still be on hold at least until september 5th to 10th approx , will not impact the Sept visa bulletin .

[longwait100]

As several thousands of RFE responses needs to be looked at , there might be a chance that all these won't be processed in time and by sept bulletin CO might decide to move it way further into late 2008.

FIFO of course cannot be implemented in the current scenario.

I think CO might be thinking " I am giving X number to India" but not necessarily care whether a 2007 PD applicant gets GC before late 2008 applicant.

If we "2007 PD" folks miss again even if we do everything the right way, it will be another disaster for us.

Indiani, I can understand your concern about an applicant with a later PD getting GC before an applicant that has an earlier PD (I've been through it myself last year), but isn't the new memo applicable to all applications from now onwards?.... so even if CO decides to move dates aggressively in Sep bulletin, the RFE rule would still apply to the later PDs that would become current in that bulletin.
By sending out RFEs to applicants with PDs upto late 2008, looks like USCIS is ensuring they have enough applications ready in the pipeline for final approval in August & September even though the real supply from the SO numbers may only suffice demand upto Feb 2008 as mentioned in the earlier communications with Fragomen.

[Kanmani]

Then there's a significant risk of wastage because Sept 10 would be the the OCt VB i.e. next fiscal year. So he would almost need to move it ahead another couple of months just in case.. no?

Viz,

What I think is there would be some kind of understanding between the agencies not to waste visas atleast from uscis handled cases.

They cannot move dates beyond their limit , I am saying this in view of some law suits with DoS against their visa allocation policies, in defense they straightaway pinpoint the uscis as processing authority and in turn they follow as per the Demand Data provided to them, which shows DD is their weapon.

The left over will be from few inevitable denials only, I personally think those few left over numbers will be allocated to the fresh applications with current priority date received at that time (before adjudication) or may be to fresh interfiling request, not sure though.

[qesehmk]

Friends .... all RFE discussion is moved to

http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showthread.php/2138-2013-RFE-Frenzy

Please keep this thread for calculations and forecasts and visa allocation etc.

[vizcard]

Viz,

What I think is there would be some kind of understanding between the agencies not to waste visas atleast from uscis handled cases.

They cannot move dates beyond their limit , I am saying this in view of some law suits with DoS against their visa allocation policies, in defense they straightaway pinpoint the uscis as processing authority and in turn they follow as per the Demand Data provided to them, which shows DD is their weapon.

The left over will be from few inevitable denials only, I personally think those few left over numbers will be allocated to the fresh applications with current priority date received at that time (before adjudication) or may be to fresh interfiling request, not sure though.

I'm sure CP plays a role here too.

[qesehmk]

Kanmani - i am sorry i haven't quite followed the discussion. But if there is talk about wholesale RFEs and as a result moving dates way ahead to compensate ; yes that's exactly what will happen now. The dates must move much farther than sustainable level and in the process some people get GC ... some don't and then as usual CO will retrogress once again. IMHO the sustainable level is around Feb 2008. CO may move dates well beyond that if he thinks there are way too many RFEs which create potential to waste visas for this year.

Viz,

What I think is there would be some kind of understanding between the agencies not to waste visas atleast from uscis handled cases.

They cannot move dates beyond their limit , I am saying this in view of some law suits with DoS against their visa allocation policies, in defense they straightaway pinpoint the uscis as processing authority and in turn they follow as per the Demand Data provided to them, which shows DD is their weapon.

The left over will be from few inevitable denials only, I personally think those few left over numbers will be allocated to the fresh applications with current priority date received at that time (before adjudication) or may be to fresh interfiling request, not sure though.

[Kanmani]

Q,

This discussion was in view of the new RFE response time implemented ( changed from 45 days to 87 days i.e., 84 days + 3 days uscis postal delay), in my opinion this is the first time we are going to see the effects of it . (FY 2012 is an exemption on all aspects)

The time interval between the RFE issue to decision is now 3 months, neither of the agencies USCIS or Dos could speculate the real time usage to move the dates further in my opinion.

[qesehmk]

Ok. Thanks. Since there is still more than 90 days to go till end of this Fiscal ... they don't need to overcompensate now for all the RFEs issues until now.

Q,

This discussion was in view of the new RFE response time implemented ( changed from 45 days to 87 days i.e., 84 days + 3 days uscis postal delay), in my opinion this is the first time we are going to see the effects of it . (FY 2012 is an exemption on all aspects)

The time interval between the RFE issue to decision is now 3 months, neither of the agencies USCIS or Dos could speculate the real time usage to move the dates further in my opinion.

[MATT2012]

Q,

This discussion was in view of the new RFE response time implemented ( changed from 45 days to 87 days i.e., 84 days + 3 days uscis postal delay), in my opinion this is the first time we are going to see the effects of it . (FY 2012 is an exemption on all aspects)

The time interval between the RFE issue to decision is now 3 months, neither of the agencies USCIS or Dos could speculate the real time usage to move the dates further in my opinion.

if an RFE is generated before priority date get current, Will the case be removed from demand, as the case is no more pre-adjudicated?