Some thing very interesting in this bulletin. Now China, is having same PD as the ROW except for EB3 other category.Originally Posted by idliman
I suspect something really sinister is going on, when all the other categories are retrogressed, China moving forward in both EB2 and 3.
I really don't see anything sinister at all.
It just means neither EB2-C or EB3-C has yet reached their 7% limits.
Back in May, CO said:
andEB-2 China will advance to November 1, 2016 in the July 2019 bulletin. This category continues to advance rapidly due to low demand. Advancements in this category could slow in the future if demand increases.
EB2-C was already 01NOV16 in the July 2019 VB. It can't be set later than the Worldwide Cut Off Date, so it shares the 01JAN17 EB2-Worldwide one in August 2019.EB-3 China should advance to January 1, 2016 in July 2019. Demand in this category is starting to increase. However, if demand in EB-2 China remains steady, it may be possible to shift some of those numbers to EB-3 China.
Similarly, EB3-C was already 01JAN16 in the July 2019 VB. It now shares the 01JUL16 Cut Off Date set for EB3-Worldwide.
Regardless, bar a few Consular Processed cases, the movement isn't going to result in extra approvals in FY2019 for either EB2-C or EB3-C. Instead, it is perhaps a way of building some demand for FY2020, given that Filing Dates have not been available to AOS applicants since January 2019. At that time, the Filing Date for EB2-C was 08SEP15 and EB3-C was 01JAN16. Final Action Dates very quickly exceeded the EB2-C date, but August 2019 will be the first time the EB3-C Filing Date has been exceeded since that time.
EB2-I continues to move ahead slowly because it has not yet reached the 7% limit. In June, CO said:
EB3-I appears to be have reached (or be very near) their limit for FY2019, given that the date has retrogressed from 01JUL09 in the July 2019 VB to 01JAN06 in the August 2019 VB.EB-2 India advances 5 days to April 24, 2009 in July. Charlie predicts that this category will continue to advance at a pace of up to one week until the limit is reached.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
Thanks Spectator. Perhaps we will see one more round of 5-day advance movement in EB2I which takes it to May 7, 2009. ROW retrogression indicates that there will be no spillover to EB2I. Is that correct assumption?
I am really suspicious about the retrogression of the ROW to exact same date. I have moved this from predictions to Bills/Politics discussion as I will be referring to those here.
With the passing of HR 1044 and discussion of S386 scheduled, this bulletin provided by USCIS, may provide fodder to the detractors of the bill that it is going to be an India specific problem.
Regarding the EB3 I, the data we have from 2009/2010 clearly indicates very low PERM numbers compared to preceding and subsequent years. It appears that there would a hard stop at around 2803/4 for EB3 India this year.
Aceman,
This really belongs in Calculations/Predictions. The message thread will get lost otherwise.
Just mentioning the Bills isn't cause enough to move it. For what it's worth, I think you've always been very good at posting in appropriate locations.
Now, to the question.
It's not ROW retrogressing to the same date. In fact it's the opposite.
No Country shown separately due to the 7% limit can have a Cut Off Date later than that for ROW.
So it's more the case that EB2-C and EB3-C could not move further forward than the date set for ROW, rather than ROW was retrogressed back to the EB2 and EB3 China dates.
Therefore the dates will be the same.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
What I don’t understand is the PI shows EB3 India has very few cases and it should have crossed April 2010 for FAD but it retrogressed to 2006?
May and June 2009 has 2800 cases - so idliman - I don’t see it jumping to July 1st. No EB2 ROW horizontal spillover anyway and USCIS is not releasing the PI numbers. So we are in the dark and at the mercy of these visa bulletins
I'm not sure I entirely understand the comment.
By the time EB3-I passed July 2007 PD, all new AOS applications needed an interview. The USCIS Pending Inventory would never have shown more than a handful - most new EB3-I cases were at either NBC or a Field Office and completely invisible to us.
We've never known (even at the most basic level) how many EB3-I cases were generated when the Filing Date of 01APR10 for EB3-I was allowed in January 2019.
Added to that, there have been far more Consular approvals of EB3-I cases than ever before and these would not have shown on a USCIS Inventory anyway.
EB3-I Consular approvals for FY2019
Oct ----- 122
Nov ----- 150
Dec ----- 105
Jan ----- 226
Feb ----- 200
Mar ----- 208
Apr ----- 179
May ----- 175
Jun ----- ???
Jul ----- ???
Aug ----- ???
Sep ----- ???
Total - 1,365
That's around 2/3 of the calculated 2,018 visas that might have been issued to EB3-I, at 9% per month, until the end of May.
That compares to 747 for the whole of FY2018 (458 to the end of May) and 150 - 200 in previous full FYs.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
Spectator- thanks for this information. So consular approvals are not included in the PI numbers? Is that one of the reasons the numbers are moving slow-in EB3 India? What would be the consular approvals for EB2 India?
The PI numbers only show AOS cases (I-485 which USCIS process). Consular cases are processed by DOS at the consulates, where they issue an Immigrant visa.
Consular approvals for EB2-I to the end of May are a mere 35 cases. Historically, the number is less than a 75 - 150 per FY, with recent years being on the lower side.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
So EB3 India is where the candidates might have left the country and now noticing their dates being current are getting their cases processed outside and also finding an employer to return?
That's how it seems.
Either they've still got the original job offer from when they chose Consular Processing, or, they've had another I-140 approved for a different employer and retained the earlier priority date.
EB2-I crossed July 2007 in late 2011. EB3-I only did so in April 2018. That's a long time for people to hang on in the USA without an I-485 filed. Maybe it explains why there is such an increase in Consular approvals for EB3-I.
I'm a little surprised at the numbers though, given they still need a provable job offer after all this time and still want to come to the USA.
The breakdown is quite interesting.
E31 Skilled worker --------------------------- 377
E32 Professional holding baccalaureate degree -- 7
E34 Spouse of E31 or E32 --------------------- 393
E35 Child of E31 or E32 ---------------------- 582
EW3 Other worker (subgroup numerical limit) ---- 2
EW4 Spouse of EW3 ------------------------------ 2
EW5 Child of EW3 ------------------------------- 2
Total -------------------------------------- 1,365
Lots of Skilled Workers, not many Professional. That may just be quite clever immigration lawyers, since it obviates any problems with degree equivalency, but would make it harder to get the initial PERM approval. Impossible to say.
The number of Dependents @ 2.5 per primary (for non Other Workers) is also quite high, but again, not very surprising given the amount of time that has elapsed.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
GC petition is for a future job. In reality that’s not how it works mostly for Indians -unless you are a nurse from Philippines. My guess is some of these cases approach shady companies to get their I-485 processed, because how long does an employer want to hang on for someone in EB3 after they left the country
Sorry to be picky, but an I-485 has nothing to do with Consular Processing.
Form I-485 is used by those wishing to adjust status within the United States.
Consular applicants apply for an Immigrant visa, which is stamped in their passport and used to enter the USA as a LPR.
Realizing the difference will also help to understand what the reports that USCIS and DOS produce contain and also (just as importantly) what they do not.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
That was at the height of the IT boom and H-1bs were much easier to get. A lot of professionals were hired on familial relationship by the first wave of immigrants and it is easier to maintain the petition if this is the case
I should have worded it as consular processing rather than I485
That is unfair to the American workers as the employer might be intentionally showing that he couldn’t find a suitable American citizen in the last 6-8 years for a Bachelor degree work.
Stockholm syndrome? My 2 cents on the topic is that american workers are more threatened by low wage growth, age discrimination, and general lack of legal protections than H1Bs stealing their jobs. American workers have benefited immensely due to free movement of capital. They are much less threatened by semi-free movement of labor i.e. H1B.
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
Spectator,
I want to ask you a simple question. Do you anticipate any spillover from the family category to Employment category in October?
Thanks for providing these numbers. Do you think the Oct'19 dates will get past July,09 for EB3-I?
It is a wonderfully simple question, but it really doesn't have such a simple answer.
It is true that Consular approvals for FB categories are lower so far in FY2019 as compared to FY2018. To the end of May, there are 18,466 fewer than at the same point last year. This represents a 13% drop. CP represented 94.44% of total FB approvals in FY2018.
On the other hand, CO is aggressively moving the Cut Off Dates for FB categories to stimulate demand. It remains to be seen whether that will be sufficient to use up all the FB allocation by the end of the FY.
The other thing to note is that it might not necessarily create that many more numbers for EB2-I and EB3-I.
The total sum of spare FB visas would first be prorated across the 5 EB categories.
Then the 7% limits apply against the increased category total.
Using an arbitrary 10,000 spare visas from FB:
FB Spillover - EB1 ----- EB2 ----- EB3 ----- EB4 ----- EB5 ----- Total
Prorated ---- 28.6% --- 28.6% --- 28.6% ---- 7.1% ---- 7.1% --- 100.0%
10,000 ----- 2,860 --- 2,860 --- 2,860 ----- 710 ----- 710 --- 10,000
7% ----------- 200 ----- 200 ----- 200 ------ 50 ------ 50 ------ 700
In EB1, EB2 and EB3 the overall allocation would increase from 40,040 to 42,900.
The 42,900 would initially be distributed as
Group ---------- Total -- Increase
China ---------- 3,003 ------- 200
India ---------- 3,003 ------- 200
Mexico --------- 3,003 ------- 200
Philippines ---- 3,003 ------- 200
ROW ----------- 30,888 ----- 2,060
Total --------- 42,900 ----- 2,860
It's not initially increasing the numbers available to India by very much.
Given the retrogression status of the categories, I don't think EB4 and EB5 wouldn't give any numbers to EB1 and EB1 wouldn't give any numbers to EB2 however many FB visas they might get. India and China are sufficiently retrogressed to use any that might become available from EB1-ROW, who have retrogression of their own.
It would need a fairly large number of FB spillover numbers for EB2-ROW demand to be satisfied (given they will have been retrogressed for 2 months in FY2019 and would have a potential 14 months demand in FY2020) so that any of their extra numbers could fall across to EB2-I.
I hope that helps in analyzing the situation for yourself.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
Spec,
I knew you would come up with such a pessimistic response as usual, but that really helps to set the expectations straight. At this time, we will take anything that comes our way...even getting 200 applicants cleared (3-4 days of movement) is golden!I say if we get combined (EB1I+ EB2I + EB3I) = 600 numbers and since EB2I has the most of the inventory, people in this category will find ways to get a big share of that 600 number by upgrading, down porting, etc. We just got a taste of it when EB3I started to get ahead of EB2I.
Thank you for your detailed response and dashing any hopes!
Sorry it sounded pessimistic, but I wanted people to understand how the SO is handled and that large sounding overall numbers might not translate into corresponding movement for the EB-I categories.Spec,
I knew you would come up with such a pessimistic response as usual, but that really helps to set the expectations straight. At this time, we will take anything that comes our way...even getting 200 applicants cleared (3-4 days of movement) is golden!
Thank you for your detailed response and dashing any hopes!
If the number could exceed 20k, then that could translate into good news. It's impossible to know how those unknown 4 months of figures will change the picture that creates the uncertainty.
As you say, something is better than nothing - let's hope for more, rather than less.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
I am sure Spec and other number crunchers will weigh in on this but a review of the statistical year books from FY2015 released by the DHS does not seem to suggest that unused numbers from FB category are being applied to the EB numbers in the following FY
For example in FY 2015 the FB visas issued was 213910 giving unused numbers of 12090 to be applied to EB category in FY 2016. But the EB numbers in FY 2016 were only 137893. What is interesting is that FB visas in FY 2016 were 238087. It is not clear where the extra numbers for FB category came from as the EB numbers in 2015 were 144047 and there was no numbers to give to FB. It almost seems like FB gained in 2016 what it lost in 2015.
However in 2017 the shortfall of 2107 visas from EB 2016 may have been applied to the FB category as they received 232238 visas
I am probably misinterpreting the statute but FB shortfalls are not being applied to EB in the following years while EB shortfalls may be going the other way to FB categories.
The limiting factor to how many EB Green cards can be issued irrespective of how many are available may be the ability of the USCIS to process applications although there have been previous years where as many as 150000 visas have been issued. However with the new interview requirements I am not sure if this is still possible. Most of the FB visas are processed by the NVC and DOS and may be faster and more efficient
According to the official DOS report, Family Based Categories received 225,671 visas in FY2015 out of the 226,000 allocation. https://travel.state.gov/content/dam...bleV-Part1.pdf
In FY2015, Employment Based Categories received 143,952 visas https://travel.state.gov/content/dam...bleV-Part3.pdf against an allocation of 144,796 https://travel.state.gov/content/tra...mber-2015.html Section D.
In FY2016, Employment Based categories had an allocation of 140,338. https://travel.state.gov/content/tra...mber-2016.html Section D. This is in line with FB usage the previous FY.
In FY2016 FB categories used 230,691 according to the official DOS Report https://travel.state.gov/content/dam...bleV-Part1.pdf
This is indeed more than the allocation of 226,000 for FB in FY2016. https://travel.state.gov/content/tra...mber-2016.html Section D.
It's impossible for FB to benefit from any unused EB visas due to the complex formula used. The number of Immediate Relatives approvals means that no number of unused EB visas would increase the 226k minimum number.
PS The USCIS Yearbooks are notoriously full of odd figures and never seem to match the official DOS Visa Statistics. Use the DOS ones wherever possible. They are the official record, since DOS controls visa issuance.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
To spec
Is it possible that some of the FB visas may have been adjustment of status through the I-485 process if they are already present in the USA in some other status? In that case the USCIS would adjudicate the application
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
