EB2-3 Predictions (Rather Calculations) 2015-2020

[Turbulent_Dragonfly]

https://travel.state.gov/content/tra...-bulletin.html

Very interesting and fishy as well.

The Visa Bulletin
Error:
USCIS, in coordination with Department of State (DOS), is revising the procedures for determining visa availability for applicants waiting to file for employment-based or family-sponsored preference adjustment of status. The revised process will better align with procedures DOS uses for foreign nationals who seek to become U.S. permanent residents by applying for immigrant visas at U.S. consulates and embassies abroad.

[rainmaker12]

Just to make sure we're talking about the same concept, I believe the discussion relates to the distribution of the overall 7% in FY2020.

For tose not familiar with the workings of this, the 7% limit is set on the summ of FB & EB allocations for a FY.

For FY2020, this would be (226,000 + 156,500) * 7% = 26,775

Prorated for FB and EB this would be 15,820 and 10,955 respectively.

If a Country does not meet the 7% limit in FB, then EB can benefit from extra approvals as long as the overall 7% limit is not exceeded.

This is why South Korea can have higher approvals in EB, since they have very few FB approvals.

As far as India goes, heres the FB approvals for FY2019 (AOS & CP).

Country --------- FB1 --- FB2A --- FB2B ---- FB3 ---- FB4 --- Total
India ----------- 275 -- 1,619 ---- 273 -- 4,316 -- 7,454 -- 13,937

Of those, these are the CP figures:

Country --------- FB1 --- FB2A --- FB2B ---- FB3 ---- FB4 --- Total
India ----------- 225 -- 1,222 ---- 226 -- 4,193 -- 7,406 -- 13,272

From this, we can calculate that 95.2% of India FB approvals were Consular Processed.

For FY2020, to the end of March 2020 (i.e. Q1 + Q2) the CP figures for India are:

Country --------- FB1 --- FB2A --- FB2B ---- FB3 ---- FB4 --- Total
India ------------ 74 ---- 500 ---- 107 -- 1,365 -- 3,557 --- 5,603

The figures above should give you a base to speculate on how this particular issue may evolve, given the current situation.

To be clear, this is entirely separate from any increased approvals due to FB under use in the previous FY, or vertical or horizontal spillover in the current FY.

This is about distribution within the current FY against the overall 7% per Country limit.

You can follow the monthly movement of CP, thanks to redsox, in this thread.

Hope that helps.

Excellent explanation and helpful. Thanks for the info Spectator.

[NeelVohra]

https://travel.state.gov/content/tra...-bulletin.html

Very interesting and fishy as well.

The Visa Bulletin
Error:
USCIS, in coordination with Department of State (DOS), is revising the procedures for determining visa availability for applicants waiting to file for employment-based or family-sponsored preference adjustment of status. The revised process will better align with procedures DOS uses for foreign nationals who seek to become U.S. permanent residents by applying for immigrant visas at U.S. consulates and embassies abroad.

The quoted URL leads to Revised Procedures for AOS

That leads to a link about the Visa Bulletin change from 2015 when the 2 charts per category was introduced. I think this is in error rather than some new change we should expect.

[aquatican]

The quoted URL leads to Revised Procedures for AOS

It seems like they started releasing the June bulletin and then changed their mind and forgot to revert to the older page sigh. ha

[rabp77]

Quick question. The country caps are applied on the overall numbers of both EB and FB. Given the pause in CP, the numbers normally used by EB CP and FB CP by India will now not be used. So the EB numbers will be available for AOS. And the FB number will spill over to next fiscal year. But since FB numbers are not used, shouldn’t that increase the EB country cap numbers this fiscal year?

Does anyone see anything wrong with the assumption above?

The fact that country caps are applied to EB + FB, means if FB india has not yet used 7% of total available for FB, then effectively the number that can be used by EB-I can be increased. So if there is horizontal spill over from ROW, then this can increase whats available for EB-I. This is likely to benefit EB1-I and EB2-I the most this year, because their ROW categories are current. EB3-ROW is nearly 3 years behind, so the spill over benefit for EB3I is likely to be lower if any. I hope i am wrong, and EB3-I also gets to benefit.

Based on Spec's numbers above, it looks like EB-I would have at max around 7,000-10,000 additional numbers available (assuming there are no approvals after march). i believe most this will benefit EB1-I and EB2-I as additional horizontal spillover from ROW. Though i hope EB3 benefits.

[LASHAB]

The quoted URL leads to Revised Procedures for AOS

It seems like they started releasing the June bulletin and then changed their mind and forgot to revert to the older page sigh. ha

Update on the visa bulletin slide
USCIS, in coordination with Department of State (DOS), is revising the procedures for determining visa availability for applicants waiting to file for employment-based or family-sponsored preference adjustment of status. The revised process will better align with procedures DOS uses for foreign nationals who seek to become U.S. permanent residents by applying for immigrant visas at U.S. consulates and embassies abroad.

This revised process will enhance DOS’s ability to more accurately predict overall immigrant visa demand and determine the cut-off dates for visa issuance published in the Visa Bulletin. This will help ensure that the maximum number of immigrant visas are issued annually as intended by Congress, and minimize month-to-month fluctuations in Visa Bulletin final action dates.

[maverick2010]

Can anyone please let me know how many EB2-I approximate numbers are there from June 2009 to May 2010? Thanks for your help!

[abcx13]

The fact that country caps are applied to EB + FB, means if FB india has not yet used 7% of total available for FB, then effectively the number that can be used by EB-I can be increased. So if there is horizontal spill over from ROW, then this can increase whats available for EB-I. This is likely to benefit EB1-I and EB2-I the most this year, because their ROW categories are current. EB3-ROW is nearly 3 years behind, so the spill over benefit for EB3I is likely to be lower if any. I hope i am wrong, and EB3-I also gets to benefit.

Based on Spec's numbers above, it looks like EB-I would have at max around 7,000-10,000 additional numbers available (assuming there are no approvals after march). i believe most this will benefit EB1-I and EB2-I as additional horizontal spillover from ROW. Though i hope EB3 benefits.

I might be wrong, but doesn't this mean that regardless of spillover from ROW, EB-I can use the visas up to 7% of EB + FB that FB-I is not using? In other words, EB should processed in order of priority date up to the EB-I 7% cap at least, which is now higher? Unless of course CO decides to screw India somehow.

[rocketfast]

I might be wrong, but doesn't this mean that regardless of spillover from ROW, EB-I can use the visas up to 7% of EB + FB that FB-I is not using? In other words, EB should processed in order of priority date up to the EB-I 7% cap at least, which is now higher? Unless of course CO decides to screw India somehow.

Interesting point. The hypothetical order of CO:

1. Gives every country 7% of EB2 (i.e 7% of 43,680).
2. If there is excess still remaining, he will look for countries that have not taken 7% in EB+FB and give it to them.

But this year, every country will fall in this category. So will he distribute remaining equally to all countries that don't meet EB+FB = 7% ? Or will he first fill up EB2-I to reach 7% in EB+FB first as it is of oldest PD. I think he will do former. So both South Korea and India should get equal distribution.

3. EB2-I gets anything leftover.

[rocketfast]

Can anyone please let me know how many EB2-I approximate numbers are there from June 2009 to May 2010? Thanks for your help!

This data is public. You can google for "I-485 inventory"

[TheLureoftheGreen]

I might be wrong, but doesn't this mean that regardless of spillover from ROW, EB-I can use the visas up to 7% of EB + FB that FB-I is not using? In other words, EB should processed in order of priority date up to the EB-I 7% cap at least, which is now higher? Unless of course CO decides to screw India somehow.

Yes. As Spec noted, this is about the distribution of the 7% of the total visas available for FB-I and EB-I in FY20. If FB-I is expected to consume fewer visas in FY20 compared to FY19, EB-I's allocation would have to increase so as to meet the 7% annual target for this year. FB-I consumed (via CP) ~13,300 visas in FY19. It has consumed only about 5,600 visas through Q2 in FY20. And the 60 day CP moratorium potentially exacerbates the problem for FB-I.

Any horizontal spillover from EBROW to EB-I, will be incremental (but would not be applied until the next FY; this is separate from the ~16,500 spillover from FY19, which would be applied this year).

[qesehmk]

Folks the 7% across EB + FB is the convenient discretion that DoS has created. It has no legal basis. Spec or anybody else, if I am wrong, please guide me to a legal source.

I have raised this issue for a very long time that
1) such thing has no basis anywhere.
2) even if so 7% is not entitlement by any stretch of imagination
3) even if it is considered entitlement it no way allows visas to be issued across EB and FB in the same year. e.g. underallocating EB because a country consumed more in FB under the 7% across EB-FB rule.

Those who engage in advocacy, please take note of this and accordingly monitor this kind of treatment. My own explanation of all these novel interpretations is that DoS/DHS always have a bias against granting GCs to Indian H1Bs. The reason behind the bias in my opinion is that DoS likes diversity (it is one of their core objectives). Thus this is a systemic issue in my opinion rather than a racist one.

[TheLureoftheGreen]

Folks the 7% across EB + FB is the convenient discretion that DoS has created. It has no legal basis. Spec or anybody else, if I am wrong, please guide me to a legal source.

I have raised this issue for a very long time that
1) such thing has no basis anywhere.
2) even if so 7% is not entitlement by any stretch of imagination
3) even if it is considered entitlement it no way allows visas to be issued across EB and FB in the same year. e.g. underallocating EB because a country consumed more in FB under the 7% across EB-FB rule.

Those who engage in advocacy, please take note of this and accordingly monitor this kind of treatment. My own explanation of all these novel interpretations is that DoS/DHS always have a bias against granting GCs to Indian H1Bs. The reason behind the bias in my opinion is that DoS likes diversity (it is one of their core objectives). Thus this is a systemic issue in my opinion rather than a racist one.

Sage advice there, Q.

Re: your points 1-3, has the DHS, however, set a general precedent based on how it has previously used this discretion? I'd think that how DHS has exercised its discretion has evolved over the past few years, but I doubt it could/would want to just constantly change its process year over year to ensure diversity. Maybe I am being naive. I just think they'd not want to risk looking like there is indeed a clear bias against granting GCs to India H1Bs (even if the source of that bias is not based on malice).

[jimmys]

The fact that country caps are applied to EB + FB, means if FB india has not yet used 7% of total available for FB, then effectively the number that can be used by EB-I can be increased. So if there is horizontal spill over from ROW, then this can increase whats available for EB-I. This is likely to benefit EB1-I and EB2-I the most this year, because their ROW categories are current. EB3-ROW is nearly 3 years behind, so the spill over benefit for EB3I is likely to be lower if any. I hope i am wrong, and EB3-I also gets to benefit.

Based on Spec's numbers above, it looks like EB-I would have at max around 7,000-10,000 additional numbers available (assuming there are no approvals after march). i believe most this will benefit EB1-I and EB2-I as additional horizontal spillover from ROW. Though i hope EB3 benefits.

Last two years EB-3 India got ~2000 more visas than EB-2 India. I don't see a reason why that can't happen this year as well.

[qesehmk]

Sage advice there, Q.

Re: your points 1-3, has the DHS, however, set a general precedent based on how it has previously used this discretion? I'd think that how DHS has exercised its discretion has evolved over the past few years, but I doubt it could/would want to just constantly change its process year over year to ensure diversity. Maybe I am being naive. I just think they'd not want to risk looking like there is indeed a clear bias against granting GCs to India H1Bs (even if the source of that bias is not based on malice).

To my knowledge, the DHS and DOS started this practice at least 8 years back. Unless somebody challenges this in courts - this will continue.

p.s. - This is just one way to limit EB-IC immigration. They have done many innovative things that limit EB-IC immigration.

[maverick2010]

USCIS inventory website only has April 2018 data. Looks like from June 2009-May 2010 there are approximately 5000 EB-2 numbers showing up. My interpretation seems wrong - I initially thought close to 25,000 EB2-I numbers between June 2009 -May 2010.

Thanks for answering my question.

[rabp77]

Last two years EB-3 India got ~2000 more visas than EB-2 India. I don't see a reason why that can't happen this year as well.

I hope you are right jimmys, and that EB3-I also benefits from horizontal spillover. 2018 and 2019 EB3-ROW had been current for most of the year (around 10-11 months of the year). But in 2020, EB3 FAD was imposed slightly earlier. But i hope i am wrong here.

[eaglenow]

Folks the 7% across EB + FB is the convenient discretion that DoS has created. It has no legal basis. Spec or anybody else, if I am wrong, please guide me to a legal source.

I have raised this issue for a very long time that
1) such thing has no basis anywhere.
2) even if so 7% is not entitlement by any stretch of imagination
3) even if it is considered entitlement it no way allows visas to be issued across EB and FB in the same year. e.g. underallocating EB because a country consumed more in FB under the 7% across EB-FB rule.

Those who engage in advocacy, please take note of this and accordingly monitor this kind of treatment. My own explanation of all these novel interpretations is that DoS/DHS always have a bias against granting GCs to Indian H1Bs. The reason behind the bias in my opinion is that DoS likes diversity (it is one of their core objectives). Thus this is a systemic issue in my opinion rather than a racist one.

1. Agreed, but CO has explained this is how it is done when explaining how S Korea got more than 7%. So this seems to be how the law has been interpreted / Implemented.
2. Absolutely it is not an entitlement, but if there are more than the 7% applicants from a given country, they need to explain why they were not allocated. Or they open themselves to discrimination lawsuits. This may not be applicable if they waste visas due to processing delays or deluge of applications.
3. Actually this is precisely what happened a few years ago when EB3-I did not get 7% allocation and S.Korea got more than its cap. This was explained as country cap met across all EB and FB for India and was not for S Korea and hence EB3-I got less than cap and other got more than cap.

The numbers cannot transfer from FB to EB the same year, but cap is applicable across both in a given year. So if for example, FB is completely stopped for I, then the cap in EB-I cap will still be 7% of FB + EB. The percent doesn’t change, the numbers will.

The attitude of admin depends on who is in power. Obviously this admin does not want any immigration. They may not like certain categories, like Diversity visa etc, but they cannot arbitrarily make decisions without appropriate policy changes, either through memo or through regulation. Otherwise they will get sued.

They can achieve this by putting in policy changes. For example the extreme vetting was put in through a memo, which was used to prevent immigration from some countries. The public charge rule is used to prevent some others. The H1B regulation is being tightened to deny as many as possible through speciality occupation etc. But as a recent court case decision demonstrated, they lost a lawsuit where courts sided with plaintiffs that the admin went beyond the law and they cannot use some of their earlier policy changes to deny h1bs.

As for Bias against India/ China, ther may be the agencies who do not like IC, but they cannot take decisions based on that as they never know who will sue them and who will not. That is a great risk personally as if a pattern is established they become personally liable. So far none of the policy changes seem to be targeting IC, though recent grumbling about China and unemployment numbers could change that.

Let’s see how things turn out in the future.

[nagalap]

When I look at the monthly report PDF for FY2020 for EB Immigrant Visa numbers (sum of both Foreign post and USCIS issued), totals only to approx 14000. Also, when I look at the summary Annual report for FY2019 the EB1 to EB3 (GC+AOS) totals to 121K. Is this not supposed to be only GC = 121K? Where can we find FY2019 EB GC issued numbers?

[nagalap]

1. Based on Monthly PDF reports, the FY2020 Q1+Q2 , EB based GC issued is approx = 14K ( Both issued in US and Consulates Abroad). What happens to the rest? Are they issued in Q3+Q4 as per earlier practices?

2. FY2019 summary report Shows GC+AOS = 121K (Eb1-Eb3). Is this number not supposed to be only GC issued? Where can I find EB only GCs issued by country report for FY2019.

Thank you! and apologies if this was answered earlier!

[mahendra]

Agency struggles to stay afloat. It seeks cash infusion.
What's impact? Staff reductions? More time to adjudicate applications?

[suninphx]

USCIS inventory website only has April 2018 data. Looks like from June 2009-May 2010 there are approximately 5000 EB-2 numbers showing up. My interpretation seems wrong - I initially thought close to 25,000 EB2-I numbers between June 2009 -May 2010.

Thanks for answering my question.

There are ~12.5K pending I-485 for EB2-I for period between Jun 2009 - Apr 2010. Check this:

https://www.aila.org/infonet/process...tistics-7-1-18

[maverick2010]

Thank you!

[skpanda]

Last night i was wondering....If USCIS staff do not resume their work on time, even though there may be horizontal/vertical spill over - they will be wasted as they will not be assigned to existing backlog.

Is this possible at all? Or will they tag the applications with a GC nbr and assign them as time permits (i saw that happened couple of years ago).

Any guesses?

[rocketfast]

Last night i was wondering....If USCIS staff do not resume their work on time, even though there may be horizontal/vertical spill over - they will be wasted as they will not be assigned to existing backlog.

Is this possible at all? Or will they tag the applications with a GC nbr and assign them as time permits (i saw that happened couple of years ago).

Any guesses?

You can look at Trackitt monthly approvals for all countries. Both in April and May, there have been approvals (around half of previous months). The numbers are small to make any statistical conclusions, but the general sense I get is that USCIS is working, but at a slower rate.

But it is indeed possible that they will waste visas. That is why, this month's visa bulletin is so much interesting. CO will have a clear view on the usage. So he can move EB2-I and EB3-I a little more aggressively. But on the other hand, in the most recent checkin, he only thought of talking about EB1-I.