EB2-3 Predictions (Rather Calculations) - 2014

[dorais]

As per this thread, Q and Spec are saying that Dos started publishing demand data only from March 2010.

Veni,

By any chance do you know any thread where we would have the data from 2009? More precisely looking for Demand Data from Oct 2009 - Mar 2010.

I think FY2014 will be pretty similar to FY2010. Such high number of approvals in Oct have only happened in the past in FY2010 and FY2012. FY2012 is not a good example as the inventory had gone down considerably. Hence, I am trying to look at data from FY2010.

[Jagan01]

Jagan - so then you agree that mathematically it is possible for EB2I to reach its annual limit in Q1 itself but that won't happen until end of Q1.

Q,

In your post you have mentioned everything along quarter lines. I agree to your explanation about what DoS can consume in one quarter. However, I disagree to the statement "mathematically it is possible for EB2I to reach its annual limit in Q1 itself but that won't happen until end of Q1."

Below is my explanation:
1. Currently 178 approvals on trackitt and that amounts to roughly ~2500 approvals in real world. So we will reach the limit of 2900. We will see when the visa approvals stop. I believe that annual limit of ~2900 will be used up before end of this month. Oct end is not end of Q1 and thus I disagree with your statement.
2. In FY2012, we had 291 approvals in trackitt between Oct and Nov. That would have been more than the annual limit of ~2800.
3. In FY2010, we had 178 approvals in trackitt between Oct and Nov. That would have been less than the annual limit of ~2800 but certainly more than limit for two quarters.

Let me make it clear that I am thinking of EB2I annual limit as 2963 for this year which is the minimum that it should get irrespective of spillover, etc.

[qesehmk]

Jagan

The approvals you are seeing in Oct could very well be using numbers from last year. We have discussed this quite a few times. Usually October does should higher approvals but they are not necessarily from the numbers from this year.

Q,

In your post you have mentioned everything along quarter lines. I agree to your explanation about what DoS can consume in one quarter. However, I disagree to the statement "mathematically it is possible for EB2I to reach its annual limit in Q1 itself but that won't happen until end of Q1."

Below is my explanation:
1. Currently 178 approvals on trackitt and that amounts to roughly ~2500 approvals in real world. So we will reach the limit of 2900. We will see when the visa approvals stop. I believe that annual limit of ~2900 will be used up before end of this month. Oct end is not end of Q1 and thus I disagree with your statement.
2. In FY2012, we had 291 approvals in trackitt between Oct and Nov. That would have been more than the annual limit of ~2800.
3. In FY2010, we had 178 approvals in trackitt between Oct and Nov. That would have been less than the annual limit of ~2800 but certainly more than limit for two quarters.

Let me make it clear that I am thinking of EB2I annual limit as 2963 for this year which is the minimum that it should get irrespective of spillover, etc.

[Jagan01]

Jagan

The approvals you are seeing in Oct could very well be using numbers from last year. We have discussed this quite a few times. Usually October does should higher approvals but they are not necessarily from the numbers from this year.

Q,

We have discussed several times since the demand data was published. According to many on this forum the verbose in the Notes section of demand data makes it clear that visas are coming from FY2014 allocation. For your reference, I am pasting the words from the demand data:

The FY 2013 Employment annual limits were reached prior to the end of September, and no further allocation
of numbers was possible after that time. Offices continued to process Employment cases, submitted them in
the normal manner, and such cases were then held in the Visa Office’s “Pending Demand” file. All eligible
cases were then allocated Employment-based numbers on October 1, 2013, under the FY 2014 annual limits.

[qesehmk]

Jagan - DOS allocating visas is one thing but it takes time for USCIS to recognize that and finally adjust the status. That's what I am saying that althought DOS may allocated the visas in 2013 Sep, the status adjustment can happen in October.
There is no way CO can allocate 3K visas to EB2I in first 2 weeks of October. My final word on this one

Q,

We have discussed several times since the demand data was published. According to many on this forum the verbose in the Notes section of demand data makes it clear that visas are coming from FY2014 allocation. For your reference, I am pasting the words from the demand data:

The FY 2013 Employment annual limits were reached prior to the end of September, and no further allocation
of numbers was possible after that time. Offices continued to process Employment cases, submitted them in
the normal manner, and such cases were then held in the Visa Office’s “Pending Demand” file. All eligible
cases were then allocated Employment-based numbers on October 1, 2013, under the FY 2014 annual limits.

[Kanmani]

Q and Jagan, Sorry to interrupt you guys.

This is very much similar to Year end Budget closing.

Each Department has budget allocation from Ministry of Finance (India) that has to be spent between April 1st to 31st March of every year. Since there are various agencies in-between, the closing date of 31st march applies only to Min of F . Inorder to make sure MIF to close the budget on date, the sub-ordinate departments should close their accounts as early as possible atleast by march 1st week.

This is done by calculating the march expenditure in Feb itself and pre-prepare the bills under 2013 accounts then finalize the expenditure and surrender the remaining funds to MIF. Here note that March expenditure is not occurred in reality. But the expenditure is being accounted in the overall budget under MIF.

Those Bills under March could be passed by Accounts General only after April1st of the next financial year but under the previous years accounts.

I have a strong opinion that the visa allocation is very much like that of the above .

Jagan, you quote from the DD is agreeable, but we cannot say for sure that all the oct approvals are from 2014 quota. It is possible that many of the approvals are from 2013 account and few from 2014 quota.

Many of us in this forum have a common opinion that extrapolating trackitt cases to real numbers vary by year to year, country of origin to CoO and category to category over the years.

[Jagan01]

Q and Jagan, Sorry to interrupt you guys.

This is very much similar to Year end Budget closing.

Each Department has budget allocation from Ministry of Finance (India) that has to be spent between April 1st to 31st March of every year. Since there are various agencies in-between, the closing date of 31st march applies only to Min of F . Inorder to make sure MIF to close the budget on date, the sub-ordinate departments should close their accounts as early as possible atleast by march 1st week.

This is done by calculating the march expenditure in Feb itself and pre-prepare the bills under 2013 accounts then finalize the expenditure and surrender the remaining funds to MIF. Here note that March expenditure is not occurred in reality. But the expenditure is being accounted in the overall budget under MIF.

Those Bills under March could be passed by Accounts General only after April1st of the next financial year but under the previous years accounts.

I have a strong opinion that the visa allocation is very much like that of the above .

Jagan, you quote from the DD is agreeable, but we cannot say for sure that all the oct approvals are from 2014 quota. It is possible that many of the approvals are from 2013 account and few from 2014 quota.

Many of us in this forum have a common opinion that extrapolating trackitt cases to real numbers vary by year to year, country of origin to CoO and category to category over the years.

Kanmani,
Thanks for the explanation.

The above reasoning might be correct. However, the fact that no visas were approved between Sept 20 - Sep 30, coupled with the Notes specified in the demand data update, make me believe that entire approvals in Oct are coming from FY 2014.

If what you are trying to say is correct, then there should have been approvals coming between Sep 20 to Sep 30. No approvals at all in this period is the thing that concerns me. I agree that your explanation gives perfect reasoning in a year when USCIS is lagging behind and cant use up the quota by Sep 30. However, here USCIS was sitting idle and CO specifically mentions that "Cases were held at Visa Offices until numbers became available". I do not think CO could have made it any clear.

[gcq]

Jagan

The approvals you are seeing in Oct could very well be using numbers from last year. We have discussed this quite a few times. Usually October does should higher approvals but they are not necessarily from the numbers from this year.

Completely agree. I know at least one of my friends who was current for 2-3 months but was approved only in October after repetitive follow up with USCIS. I suspect DOS has kept the dates unchanged to let USCIS use up all visas. On another note I believe USCIS has become inefficient/overloaded lately because of the administrative action taken by Obama for illegal kids aka Dreamers.

[qesehmk]

I am sorry but this is wishful thinking.

However it's just as likely that he got approved in October 1st week because the visas had really exhausted in mid September 2013. Do you agree?

[IsItWorthTheTrouble]

My date is in last week of July '08. Any chances the dates might move in the next few bulletins because of govt shutdown/PERM slowdown or any tangible movement shall 've to wait till the last qtr?

[gcq]

However it's just as likely that he got approved in October 1st week because the visas had really exhausted in mid September 2013. Do you agree?

From what we can see, there was an explicit communication about visas running out and there was a simultaneous correlating phenomenon of no approvals for the last 2 weeks in September. This shows that the approvals this year must be from the 2014 quota. I would really like to believe otherwise, but I find the other explanation only wishful thinking.

Also, I know that CO is bound by a lot of laws, but what he is dealing with is an extremely sensitive inventory system. Ultimately laws are only as useful as their ability to get implemented in an effective manner. If I was CO, I would see a lack of demand from other categories and a pending inventory at EB2-I and simply start assigning visas to EB2-I. If demand in other categories picks up, make EB2-I unavailable. If EB2-I reaches the 3000 mark, make it unavailable and be done with it. That reduces headache and it does not break the "important law". Ultimately, CO needs to ensure that all 148K visas are utilized, each country get its fair share and each category gets its fair share. Those are the main goals. Everything else is secondary.

I Believe (rather hope) that EB2-I should be made unavailable after it hits the 3000 mark until the spillover season starts.

As for my friend, he was told in mid september that he could hear the good news anytime by an L2 officer.

CO might have some leeway in managing visa allocations. However he cannot disregard laws as is written. There is an explicit law stating that he cannot assign the entire years quota until 4th quarter. He hasn't broken it so far and won't in future IMO. Whenever I read jagan's post, it sounds like a wishful thinking to me. While discussing these issues on the forum, we should detach our personal case from the discussion. Otherwise we loose objectivity.

If USCIS was efficient as many here likes to believe and CO was allocating this years quota in first month, USCIS would approve all the cases and report it back to DOS. DOS would then change the visa bulletin to reflect that. But that is not what has happened in Nov bulletin. Dates remained steady for EB3-I and EB2-I. This can never happen if our assumptions about USCIS and DOS are true. It has to move forward or backward at least for India.

[qesehmk]

IIWTT - looking at the demand data and the way dates have not retrogressed - you should probably get GC by 1st or 2nd calendar quarter of 2014.

If CO chooses to do quarterly spillover then it could be as soon as this december. Good luck.

My date is in last week of July '08. Any chances the dates might move in the next few bulletins because of govt shutdown/PERM slowdown or any tangible movement shall 've to wait till the last qtr?

[PD2008AUG25]

CO might have some leeway in managing visa allocations. However he cannot disregard laws as is written. There is an explicit law stating that he cannot assign the entire years quota until 4th quarter. He hasn't broken it so far and won't in future IMO. Whenever I read jagan's post, it sounds like a wishful thinking to me. While discussing these issues on the forum, we should detach our personal case from the discussion. Otherwise we loose objectivity.

Have you ever seen an instance where CO has used previous year's quota? From what we know concepts like visa wastage, attempts to change law to recapture won't exist if he could use previous year's quota. How many times he had used phrase like "to better utilize available number". IMO, using previous year's numbers is equally wishful as using entire year's quota.

Hence, QSP is the most likely explanation. I know, CO is not fond of it, given how he was burned after overusing numbers in 2011. But at least, we know that he has used it in past, it is sanctioned by law and there are potential reasons for using this quarter.

[helooo]

IIWTT - looking at the demand data and the way dates have not retrogressed - you should probably get GC by 1st or 2nd calendar quarter of 2014.

If CO chooses to do quarterly spillover then it could be as soon as this december. Good luck.

Hi Q,
So July08 can get GC without moving the dates or he should be current when he gets GC?

[gcq]

Have you ever seen an instance where CO has used previous year's quota? From what we know concepts like visa wastage, attempts to change law to recapture won't exist if he could use previous year's quota. How many times he had used phrase like "to better utilize available number". IMO, using previous year's numbers is equally wishful as using entire year's quota.

Hence, QSP is the most likely explanation. I know, CO is not fond of it, given how he was burned after overusing numbers in 2011. But at least, we know that he has used it in past, it is sanctioned by law and there are potential reasons for using this quarter.

This is not using previous year's quota. 2013 visas were allocated in 2013 itself. (Using 2013 visas in 2014 is illegal as well.) USCIS assigned visa numbers to applicants in 2013. However they took a while to approve it which finally happened in 2014. This has happened in the past too. People got approved even after bulletin had retrogressed. Behind the scenes everything is happening as per the law, when we look from outside it looks different.

[gcq]

How do you explain what happened in 2012? He ran out of EB2-I numbers well into March and had to make it unavailable the rest of the year.

Let's say he gives 3000 visas now and calls it QSP. What happens if the EB2-ROW demand increases in future? Is he still liable to give the remaining 2200 visas to EB2I? The law is conflicting. It states a) do QSP and b) Don't exceed country limits.

P.S. I wouldn't call Jagan's position wishful thinking because he is being on the conservative side. He and I think the numbers being used are from the 2014 quota and he and I "wish" EB2I get retrogressed until the spillover season. You (and others) believe approvals are under 2013 quota, there is no new porting demand, there is no QSP and yet dates remain where they are and will continue to be so in near future. Given the history of EB2I, THAT would be wishful thinking.

That is a mistake by CO. He corrected it by making it unavailable. That is the exact reason why CO should be very careful in over-allocating. If he under-allocates, he can always catch up in the last quarter.

[qesehmk]

Hi Q,
So July08 can get GC without moving the dates or he should be current when he gets GC?

Oh no no... The dates will have to move forward for that.

How do you explain what happened in 2012? He ran out of EB2-I numbers well into March and had to make it unavailable the rest of the year.

That could very well happen when QSP is actually applied. EB2I can easily reach its annual limit and then CO stops applying spillover as he anticipates more demand in later part of year. Also that became a good pretext for him to retrogress dates to a level that was stupid. Now why he would impose severe retro? None of us would know. But we can speculate. My theory is - that is his way to discourage EB2I folks. I hope I am wrong.

I am curious Q what a very conservative person (like spec) has to say on this. I know you tend to be on the aggressive side. My view is that given the fact that the announcement came of visa numbers getting over and a simultaneous noticeable drop in approvals is clear enough proof that any approvals happening in October are coming from the 2014 numbers. I would be really glad if it were otherwise, but I find the "otherwise" scenario wishful thinking.

Sport - I think Spec will have to speak for himself. But the only way EB2I could receive 3K visas in first two weeks of October are:
1. If they are actually from prior year.
2. CO breaks the 27% rule and simply allocates EB2I the full year numbers.
3. CO applies QSP for Q1 anticipating less demand in other categories way ahead of time.

#2 and #3 seems much less realistic to me than #1. So my thinking is not about being aggressive or conservative but more about what is realistically possible. But of course different people can have different opinions. So I would concede that.

[helooo]

[QUOTE=qesehmk;44321]Oh no no... The dates will have to move forward for that.
So,If CO applies QSP then it will be next VB?

[PD2008AUG25]

This is not using previous year's quota. 2013 visas were allocated in 2013 itself. (Using 2013 visas in 2014 is illegal as well.) USCIS assigned visa numbers to applicants in 2013. However they took a while to approve it which finally happened in 2014. This has happened in the past too. People got approved even after bulletin had retrogressed. Behind the scenes everything is happening as per the law, when we look from outside it looks different.

How do you explain lack of approvals between 20 Sep and 30 Sep? If it is announced officially that visas are over for FY13, followed by no approvals until 1 Oct, I can't see how visas could be from FY13. If you say USCIS is inefficient and overloaded because of DACA, doesn't it seem like too much of an coincidence when suddenly approvals start raining on 1 Oct?

[qesehmk]

So,If CO applies QSP then it will be next VB?

If so - yes. But if history is any precedent - he won't.

[Jagan01]

As for my friend, he was told in mid september that he could hear the good news anytime by an L2 officer.

CO might have some leeway in managing visa allocations. However he cannot disregard laws as is written. There is an explicit law stating that he cannot assign the entire years quota until 4th quarter. He hasn't broken it so far and won't in future IMO. Whenever I read jagan's post, it sounds like a wishful thinking to me. While discussing these issues on the forum, we should detach our personal case from the discussion. Otherwise we loose objectivity.

If USCIS was efficient as many here likes to believe and CO was allocating this years quota in first month, USCIS would approve all the cases and report it back to DOS. DOS would then change the visa bulletin to reflect that. But that is not what has happened in Nov bulletin. Dates remained steady for EB3-I and EB2-I. This can never happen if our assumptions about USCIS and DOS are true. It has to move forward or backward at least for India.

gcq,
I haven't called anyone's logic to be wishful thinking. I have due respect for every theory and would like to discuss using numbers. I am all up for a poll, if necessary, to see where people stand.

Also, I would advice you to get a dictionary. Below is the meaning of wishful thinking.
"Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality, or reality. Studies have consistently shown that holding all else equal, subjects will predict positive outcomes to be more likely than negative outcomes (see valence effect)."

Surely its pleasing for each and everyone of us to believe that visas approved in OCT 2013 are coming from 2013 numbers. Its good for you, good for sportsfan, good for me, good for everyone. Now, I am saying that it is not coming from FY2013 and is coming from FY2014. So I am thinking of a scenario which is NOT PLEASING. I do not understand how that can be wishful thinking. I am also looking at EVIDENCE (Notes section of Demand Data and the fact that no one got approved between Sep 20 - Sep 30). In fact the other theory saying that numbers are coming from FY2013 has not yet answered the basic question "Why no visas between 20 - Sep 30?". Don't you think that is neglecting evidence?

[Jagan01]

I was looking at the historical trends from FY2008 - FY2013. Only twice before has there been such high number of approvals in OCT. All number below are trackitt numbers. You can consider trackitt to be approximately 7% of actual numbers. This might not be accurate but just an approximation.

FY2010: High approvals in OCT (178). However, the date was nicely set. The demand after OCT was not huge and thus gradual approvals in the following months. Total approvals from OCT to FEB only 230. Thus CO pushed date ahead by one month in Mar and proceeded cautiously. Important thing to note is that total approvals from Oct to Feb was 230 (~3450). This is nowhere close to the actual numbers that EB2I might get in that year (including direct + spillover). Hence no retrogression.

FY 2012: High approvals in OCT. Between Oct and Mar, there were 1490 (~22350) approvals. CO realized that it has exceeded EB2I direct + spillover potential and has to make it U.

I am thinking he is going on the FY2010 route. He has conveniently placed the date at June 2008. There is ~1000 demand prior to that. Thee will always be porting and it is around ~5000. CO thinks that he can handle these ~6000 cases and still be within the (annual EB2I limit + annual EB2I spillover potential). He knows that as of today, EB2I should have 3000 + 5000 (from 8000 additional that showed up in DD).

Its only when he thinks that the numbers will reach closer to (the annual EB2I limit + annual EB2I spillover potential), that he decides to make it U.

I wish that it becomes U or moves forward to include my PD . However, I predict, that it will stay at June 2008 as CO seems to have found this sweet spot which he thinks he can easily handle in FY 2014.

[gcq]

gcq,
I haven't called anyone's logic to be wishful thinking. I have due respect for every theory and would like to discuss using numbers. I am all up for a poll, if necessary, to see where people stand.

Also, I would advice you to get a dictionary. Below is the meaning of wishful thinking.
"Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality, or reality. Studies have consistently shown that holding all else equal, subjects will predict positive outcomes to be more likely than negative outcomes (see valence effect)."

Surely its pleasing for each and everyone of us to believe that visas approved in OCT 2013 are coming from 2013 numbers. Its good for you, good for sportsfan, good for me, good for everyone. Now, I am saying that it is not coming from FY2013 and is coming from FY2014. So I am thinking of a scenario which is NOT PLEASING. I do not understand how that can be wishful thinking. I am also looking at EVIDENCE (Notes section of Demand Data and the fact that no one got approved between Sep 20 - Sep 30). In fact the other theory saying that numbers are coming from FY2013 has not yet answered the basic question "Why no visas between 20 - Sep 30?". Don't you think that is neglecting evidence?

No approvals between Sep 20-30 doesn't mean all applications subject to to 2013 quota were approved by Sep 20. By Sep 20, all visas from 2013 were assigned to applications that were either approved/not yet approved. Some of these applications were approved only in October. Assuming that all the approvals from October were because of 2014 quota is misleading and not based on facts. CO cannot and will not allocate entire years's quota in first month - that is a fact supported by law and history. If some of you don't want to believe that, I would call it wishful thinking ( not based on facts). Nothing personal, but a bit frustrated that people don't want to follow facts and history.

[Jagan01]

No approvals between Sep 20-30 doesn't mean all applications subject to to 2013 quota were approved by Sep 20. By Sep 20, all visas from 2013 were assigned to applications that were either approved/not yet approved. Some of these applications were approved only in October. Assuming that all the approvals from October were because of 2014 quota is misleading and not based on facts. CO cannot and will not allocate entire years's quota in first month - that is a fact supported by law and history. If some of you don't want to believe that, I would call it wishful thinking ( not based on facts). Nothing personal, but a bit frustrated that people don't want to follow facts and history.

Well you may call it whatever you want. Again, I will repeat, you seem to not understand the meaning of wishful. I have given you the dictionary meaning. I have given you as simple an explanation about what wishful means, as I would give to a 4th grader. Yet if you want to call it wishful, then only god can save you.

Lets talk about Facts and History:
1. Please quote examples of the year when you have seen that a previous year FY visas are assigned to a new year and there were no approvals in the last 10 days of September. Specifically there a stream of approvals between Sep 1 and 20 and then ZERO approvals between Sep 20 - 30. Merely using the terms FACTS and HISTORY does not suffice. Tell me the year. Give Examples. If you dont have one then please refrain from using terms facts and history.
2. Facts are right in from of everyone. You don't even want to believe what CO says. I am following the facts put forward by CO.
3. And by your logic, why were there no approvals from Sep 20 - 30? you still have not explained "Why no approvals". Its like saying, yes I have money to buy food, yes I am starving, but I will wait 10 days and not eat anything, JUST FOR FUN. That sounds absurd.

[gcq]

Well you may call it whatever you want. Again, I will repeat, you seem to not understand the meaning of wishful. I have given you the dictionary meaning. I have given you as simple an explanation about what wishful means, as I would give to a 4th grader. Yet if you want to call it wishful, then only god can save you.

Lets talk about Facts and History:
1. Please quote examples of the year when you have seen that a previous year FY visas are assigned to a new year and there were no approvals in the last 10 days of September. Specifically there a stream of approvals between Sep 1 and 20 and then ZERO approvals between Sep 20 - 30. Merely using the terms FACTS and HISTORY does not suffice. Tell me the year. Give Examples. If you dont have one then please refrain from using terms facts and history.
2. Facts are right in from of everyone. You don't even want to believe what CO says. I am following the facts put forward by CO.
3. And by your logic, why were there no approvals from Sep 20 - 30? you still have not explained "Why no approvals". Its like saying, yes I have money to buy food, yes I am starving, but I will wait 10 days and not eat anything, JUST FOR FUN. That sounds absurd.

1. I don't have the exact dates as I am recalling this from my memory after being on immigration forums from 2007. This has happened post July Fiasco. I have seen members posting on other forums many times.
2. I don't believe what CO says. Especially the ones he says it on visa bulletin. Many times he fills in visa bulletin with information just to write something. Sometimes he is serious. So I don't waste my time reading too much into his "explanations". He has erred many times and bluffed many times. Again if you ask me proof I have read visa bulletins in the past and then realized how speculative he was in some of those bulletins. For the record I have even spoken to CO to correct his misinterpretation of the law in terms of country caps. So I don't believe he is the absolute standard. For your information I have gone through INA country cap and allocation part to have a sensible conversation with him. I don't think some of you have even read INA properly. That is why a few of you guys keep misinterpreting the law and speculating.
3. I have been following my friend closely over the past 3 months about his approval actively. So I know first hand what I am talking about. Also I came to know how clueless many L2 officers are. One of them even said "We don't give details about the case to individuals".