EB2 Predictions (Rather Calculations) - 2011

[qesehmk]

Great question and observation.

I think the shortfall indicates EB3I->EB2I conversions AND/OR wastage by USCIS. I am inclined more towards the first than second.

can someone help me understand,

if SOFAD for last year was 26500, why there is only 22000 inventory went down for EB2(I+C)?

[bieber]

thanx spec and Q,

one last question Q, how did u derive Eb1 and Eb2ROW consumption as 1000/month and 7000/qtr based on inventory reports?

[qesehmk]

Sorry .... didn't understand teh question. Where did I say that?

thanx spec and Q,

one last question Q, how did u derive Eb1 and Eb2ROW consumption as 1000/month and 7000/qtr based on inventory reports?

[TeddyKoochu]

I think the SOFAD was more than that. Just look at EB2 IC reduction which was almost 57.5 - 35.5 = 22K. (Where 57.5 is from Dec 09 and 35.5 is OCt 10).

I would like to think that most of it came from EB1 rather than EB2ROW because of accelerated PERM approvals. So that puts EB2ROW almost at full utilization for 2010. i.e. approx 32K. For 2011 if the rate is 2/3rd i.e. approx 22K then EB2ROW can only give as much as last year since the 10K reduction here is offset by FB spillover being gone this year. So whatever ROW gave last year + whatever EB1 gave last year was approx 22K. Right?

That's counting the optimistic projection that ROW in 2011 is running at 2/3rd of 2010 demand.

So I believe 35K is a very wild projection for 2011 especially given that 10K FB spillover is absent this year.

p.s. - The DHS report will be tremendously helpful. Lets keep our fingers crossed!

I would put this a little differently. If we were to have teh same demand as last year then in 2011 we will see 10K less SOFAD (because FB spillover is gone).

Right?

So the question is where do we think demand may actually go down? EB5/4/2ROW/1 ? As you noted EB2 may have 1/3 less demand compared to 2010. Now that's a big one. If true and if in 2010 ROW utilized all its quota then in 2011 EB2ROW reduction is roughly equivalent to 10K and compensates the FB spillover reduction.

So if everything else stays same then in 2011 we will expect same SOFAD as last year i.e. 26.5K. Right.

That looks like an optimistic scenario (if all our base assumptions are right.). So I think what sangiano said and I am saying and I think spec you think similar - is that the likely SOFAD would be in the range 22-28K. My own range is bigger than that given the uncertainty in many assumptions. But the mean revolves around 24-26K range which is hardly going to cross Dec 06.

That's why still struggling with your 35K claim.

Q lets think it over differently, Iam giving my original prediction with EB1=3.5K and EB2 ROW 10K last year and also EB1=13.5K and EB2 ROW = 0 last year. Iam going by your old definition of SOFAD which includes the annual allocation as well.
- We agree that EB2 ROW and EB1 SOFAD was 13.5K. I believe we all agree the answer is yes.
- I would apply not having FB to the categories individually assuming that their cap was never exhausted and thereby was never a hurdle in them getting any extra numbers even more than what they got. Also the loss of not having FB is 6.5K not 10K as the FB itself was 9.2K and the part of it went to EB4 and EB5 which never came to EB2 anyway.
Now lets analyze on Trackitt to see the trend for October to December
Year 2009 (Oct to Dec) EB2 ROW – 190 EB2 NIW – 27 Total – 207
EB1A – 46 EB1B – 87 EB1C – 63 Total - 196
Year 2010 (Oct to Dec) EB2 ROW – 122 EB2 NIW – 13 Total - 135
EB1A – 16 EB1B – 18 EB1B – 19 Total – 53
- Some known facts are a) Total 2010 SOFAD - 26.5K (AILA Report). b) EB5 - 7.5K From reliable published reports. c) India & China Annual Cap - 6K. For this year FB spillover has been assumed to be 0. Effectively SOFAD from EB2 ROW and EB1 = 26.5 - 7.5 - 6 = 13K.
Original Prediction - For the rest of the calculations I assume that probably 10K came from EB2 ROW and 3.5K came from EB1. Adjustment for NO FB this Year = -6.5K. Nett SOFAD from EB2 ROW and EB1 without FB would be 13K - 6.5K = 6.5K.
The drop in EB1 appears to be really drastic however I feel it is not being adequately represented. However looks like the EB1 consumption could drop this year compared to last year though. .
Consumption last year = 43000 - 3500 = 39500.
If we assume a drop of 25% (Extremely conservative) the consumption will be 29625
However this year we are back to the regular cap so SOFAD = 40320-26925 ~ 11K
If we assume a drop of 50% (Extremely Optimistic) the consumption will be 19750
However this year we are back to the regular cap so SOFAD = 40320-19750 ~ 20K
For the conservative calculation let’s just go ahead with 11K.
For EB2 the data appears to be good.
EB2 ROW consumption last year = 40320 - 6000 - 10000 = 24320.
Now the trend shows that the consumption is (135/207) * 24320 ~ 16K.
So potential SOFAD out of EB2 ROW will be 34K - 16K ~ 18K.
EB5 SOFAD I expect will decline from 7K to 5K.
Hence total SOFAD that we can expect in 2011 = 11 + 18 + 5 = 34K.
- We agree that even in the most optimistic scenario for EB2 ROW would not have consumed beyond its cap.
To create your scenario let’s put the EB2 ROW consumption to be 42970 - 6000 = 36970.
Lets apply the 1/3 rd factor to this the Nett reduction comes to be 12323.
This year the cap is cap is only 40320. Nett EB2 ROW SOFAD therefore comes out to be 40320-5600-36970+12323 ~ 10K.
Now let’s analyze EB1 similarly. EB1 cap last year was ~ 43.5K out of which 13.5K lets say came as SOFAD so EB1 consumption last year was 30K.
Factoring in a 25% reduction it would come to a 22.5K consumption. So the SOFAD will be 40320 - 22500 ~= 18K.
Nett SOFAD by this way comes out to be 18 + 10 + 5 (EB5) + 5.6 K ~= 38K.
This final outcome comes out to be somewhat similar when I assumed EB1 gave 3.5K and EB2 ROW gave 10K. However this approach has a huge risk, Eb1 usage is known to surprise and if this 18K could well be 5-8K so the SOFAD could come in the 25-28K range, this however maybe a conservative calculation.

[qesehmk]

Teddy thanks. There are some minor kinks in your calculations but not worth discussing.

The biggest takeaway for me is that you are relying on 33% YoY reduction in EB2ROW demand and 25% YoY reduction on EB1 demand.

I think that's a significant assumption. Trackitt data certainly supports both assumptions. I am somewhat ok with ROW assumption but remember the labor data is in conflict with that assumption.

Regarding EB1, I would actually tend to agree with that assumption direction except that I would avoid coming to any conclusion when the number of cases is only in single digits. The reduced YoY trackitt demand certainly tells you that cycle time for EB1-485 has reduced greatly and EB1 folks don't bother to record their application in trackitt. What it doesn't tell you is that whether the throughput has decreased.

However, in both cases I certainly think that trackitt data provides silver lining to otherwise ominous signs present in both categories. Thanks ... now we are in sync in terms of our understanding of where the 35K SOFAD prediction comes from.

Q lets think it over differently, Iam giving my original prediction with EB1=3.5K and EB2 ROW 10K last year and also EB1=13.5K and EB2 ROW = 0 last year. Iam going by your old definition of SOFAD which includes the annual allocation as well.
- We agree that EB2 ROW and EB1 SOFAD was 13.5K. I believe we all agree the answer is yes.
- I would apply not having FB to the categories individually assuming that their cap was never exhausted and thereby was never a hurdle in them getting any extra numbers even more than what they got. Also the loss of not having FB is 6.5K not 10K as the FB itself was 9.2K and the part of it went to EB4 and EB5 which never came to EB2 anyway.
Now lets analyze on Trackitt to see the trend for October to December
Year 2009 (Oct to Dec) EB2 ROW – 190 EB2 NIW – 27 Total – 207
EB1A – 46 EB1B – 87 EB1C – 63 Total - 196
Year 2010 (Oct to Dec) EB2 ROW – 122 EB2 NIW – 13 Total - 135
EB1A – 16 EB1B – 18 EB1B – 19 Total – 53
- Some known facts are a) Total 2010 SOFAD - 26.5K (AILA Report). b) EB5 - 7.5K From reliable published reports. c) India & China Annual Cap - 6K. For this year FB spillover has been assumed to be 0. Effectively SOFAD from EB2 ROW and EB1 = 26.5 - 7.5 - 6 = 13K.
Original Prediction - For the rest of the calculations I assume that probably 10K came from EB2 ROW and 3.5K came from EB1. Adjustment for NO FB this Year = -6.5K. Nett SOFAD from EB2 ROW and EB1 without FB would be 13K - 6.5K = 6.5K.
The drop in EB1 appears to be really drastic however I feel it is not being adequately represented. However looks like the EB1 consumption could drop this year compared to last year though. .
Consumption last year = 43000 - 3500 = 39500.
If we assume a drop of 25% (Extremely conservative) the consumption will be 29625
However this year we are back to the regular cap so SOFAD = 40320-26925 ~ 11K
If we assume a drop of 50% (Extremely Optimistic) the consumption will be 19750
However this year we are back to the regular cap so SOFAD = 40320-19750 ~ 20K
For the conservative calculation let’s just go ahead with 11K.
For EB2 the data appears to be good.
EB2 ROW consumption last year = 40320 - 6000 - 10000 = 24320.
Now the trend shows that the consumption is (135/207) * 24320 ~ 16K.
So potential SOFAD out of EB2 ROW will be 34K - 16K ~ 18K.
EB5 SOFAD I expect will decline from 7K to 5K.
Hence total SOFAD that we can expect in 2011 = 11 + 18 + 5 = 34K.
- We agree that even in the most optimistic scenario for EB2 ROW would not have consumed beyond its cap.
To create your scenario let’s put the EB2 ROW consumption to be 42970 - 6000 = 36970.
Lets apply the 1/3 rd factor to this the Nett reduction comes to be 12323.
This year the cap is cap is only 40320. Nett EB2 ROW SOFAD therefore comes out to be 40320-5600-36970+12323 ~ 10K.
Now let’s analyze EB1 similarly. EB1 cap last year was ~ 43.5K out of which 13.5K lets say came as SOFAD so EB1 consumption last year was 30K.
Factoring in a 25% reduction it would come to a 22.5K consumption. So the SOFAD will be 40320 - 22500 ~= 18K.
Nett SOFAD by this way comes out to be 18 + 10 + 5 (EB5) + 5.6 K ~= 38K.
This final outcome comes out to be somewhat similar when I assumed EB1 gave 3.5K and EB2 ROW gave 10K. However this approach has a huge risk, Eb1 usage is known to surprise and if this 18K could well be 5-8K so the SOFAD could come in the 25-28K range, this however maybe a conservative calculation.

[Spectator]

My understanding was that SOFAD, despite the name, actually referred to Spillover + Normal Country allocation.

On that basis, Teddy's 5 + 11 + 18 = 34k Spillover is actually 39.6k SOFAD once China and India's 5.6k allocation is added on.

Please let me know what is the accepted definition of SOFAD. I explained it as above in a FAQ. I need to amend it if the definition has changed.

[qesehmk]

Your understanding is correct. This was one of the minor kinks I mentioned in Teddy's post. He does refer to Nett(sic) SOFAD at 38K in one place but forgot prior to that. But that's ok. I guess the main takeway/question is we will or will we see those reductions that trackitt data is supporting. I am not quite sure yet. Lets wait a quarter ...(or until the USCIS report comes... whatever is early.)

My understanding was that SOFAD, despite the name, actually referred to Spillover + Normal Country allocation.

On that basis, Teddy's 5 + 11 + 18 = 34k Spillover is actually 39.6k SOFAD once China and India's 5.6k allocation is added on.

Please let me know what is the accepted definition of SOFAD. I explained it as above in a FAQ. I need to amend it if the definition has changed.

[TeddyKoochu]

My understanding was that SOFAD, despite the name, actually referred to Spillover + Normal Country allocation.

On that basis, Teddy's 5 + 11 + 18 = 34k Spillover is actually 39.6k SOFAD once China and India's 5.6k allocation is added on.

Please let me know what is the accepted definition of SOFAD. I explained it as above in a FAQ. I need to amend it if the definition has changed.

Spec, you have the right definition for SOFAD I missed adding the 5.6K at the line you mentioned. SOFAD is a term that Q had coined it in essence means numbers from all possible sources for a given category.

[qesehmk]

Teddy .. I liked your explanation. So beautifully put!

Spec, you have the right definition for SOFAD I missed adding the 5.6K at the line you mentioned. SOFAD is a term that Q had coined it in essence means numbers from all possible sources for a given category.

[Spectator]

Teddy .. I liked your explanation. So beautifully put!

Agreed.

In fact, so good, I have updated the FAQ to include it.

[TeddyKoochu]

Agreed.

In fact, so good, I have updated the FAQ to include it.

Thanks Spec Iam glad you have forgivven me for missing the 5.6K now. Guys I assume I was using this 5.6K in my original prediction for the range of 2 months Feb - Apr 2007 missed to add it here though. Q & Spec please point out all calculation errors and glitches at all times it will help not only to improve the accuracy but add to clarity !

[qesehmk]

Teddy,

Friction is where we learn something. So no worries with our differences in opinion. These differences help all of us by putting forth various views and vet opinions and facts.

We have been respectful of each other and with all others. And thats how we need to be if we were of any value to anybody. Difference in viewpoint is a very useful thing.

Pls keep it up!!

Thanks Spec Iam glad you have forgivven me for missing the 5.6K now. Guys I assume I was using this 5.6K in my original prediction for the range of 2 months Feb - Apr 2007 missed to add it here though. Q & Spec please point out all calculation errors and glitches at all times it will help not only to improve the accuracy but add to clarity !

[srinivasj]

Regarding EB1, I would actually tend to agree with that assumption direction except that I would avoid coming to any conclusion when the number of cases is only in single digits. The reduced YoY trackitt demand certainly tells you that cycle time for EB1-485 has reduced greatly and EB1 folks don't bother to record their application in trackitt. What it doesn't tell you is that whether the throughput has decreased.

I was told today that EB1 took just 3 months for a friend of my friend..not sure how accurate that is..

[qesehmk]

I wouldn't be surprised if it were true. Things have become much more efficient at USCIS and possibly volumes may have reduced (scant evidence - refer to trackitt).

I was told today that EB1 took just 3 months for a friend of my friend..not sure how accurate that is..

[Spectator]

Thanks Spec Iam glad you have forgivven me for missing the 5.6K now. Guys I assume I was using this 5.6K in my original prediction for the range of 2 months Feb - Apr 2007 missed to add it here though. Q & Spec please point out all calculation errors and glitches at all times it will help not only to improve the accuracy but add to clarity !

Teddy,

I think that is the beauty of a forum like this. It allows a second or third pair of eyes to run over the data. In hindsight, I do wonder whether a PM would have been a better method of discussing it with you though.

As Q says healthy and lively debate is positively advantageous. There can be a danger that what is meant as constructive criticism or a debating point can be taken more negatively. Given my direct style, I am all too aware of that. I hope everybody realizes by now that I never mean to cause offence.

I've already learnt a lot from the discussions on the forum.

I like the way that you factor in PWMB on a sliding scale - it is something I would like to incorporate myself - I haven't quite figured out how to do that yet. I think I probably overestimate it at the moment.

Conversely, I think that your CP numbers might be a little high, if they only cover Consular cases. The average monthly number for India & China combined is 1,106, so 100 a month represents 9%. In the last few years, it has been running at around 1%.

It might be something to consider, even if it combines FO cases as well.

On a fun note - I have all sorts of charts, trying desperately to see patterns from the chaos (unsuccessfully). I thought this one at least visualized how the differences look between Teddy at the high end and myself at the low end.

I don't claim it shows anything else - please treat it as a bit of fun!

Also on a fun note, I calculated the figures where Teddy and my predictions cross. It would result in SOFAD of just over 27k, which would translate to mid December 2006 in Teddy's model and around Dec 22 2006 in mine.

I don't claim that the crossing point is significant.

Projections.JPG

PS It might be worth noting that the new Spillover interpretation started being applied in FY2008.

[qesehmk]

Spec

Very nice graph. It tells the story so well ... that ROW is gaining at the expense of EB2I. EB2C as can be seen is going down in its usage on its own.

Teddy,

I think that is the beauty of a forum like this. It allows a second or third pair of eyes to run over the data. In hindsight, I do wonder whether a PM would have been a better method of discussing it with you though.

As Q says healthy and lively debate is positively advantageous. There can be a danger that what is meant as constructive criticism or a debating point can be taken more negatively. Given my direct style, I am all too aware of that. I hope everybody realizes by now that I never mean to cause offence.

I've already learnt a lot from the discussions on the forum.

I like the way that you factor in PWMB on a sliding scale - it is something I would like to incorporate myself - I haven't quite figured out how to do that yet. I think I probably overestimate it at the moment.

Conversely, I think that your CP numbers might be a little high, if they only cover Consular cases. The average monthly number for India & China combined is 1,106, so 100 a month represents 9%. In the last few years, it has been running at around 1%.

It might be something to consider, even if it combines FO cases as well.

On a fun note - I have all sorts of charts, trying desperately to see patterns from the chaos (unsuccessfully). I thought this one at least visualized how the differences look between Teddy at the high end and myself at the low end.

I don't claim it shows anything else - please treat it as a bit of fun!

Also on a fun note, I calculated the figures where Teddy and my predictions cross. It would result in SOFAD of just over 27k, which would translate to mid December 2006 in Teddy's model and around Dec 22 2006 in mine.

I don't claim that the crossing point is significant.

Projections.JPG

[Spectator]

Spec

Very nice graph. It tells the story so well ... that ROW is gaining at the expense of EB2I. EB2C as can be seen is going down in its usage on its own.

Hmm, I am not sure about that. The chart shows % use not number use. So if SOFAD is low, then ROW will have a very high %.

See what you make of this chart which plots the same, but by number use. It tells a different story.

Projections No.JPG

[qesehmk]

I think this second one is also interesting and tell the same story as first one. PLUS it shows that EB2I, contrary to common sense, is not doing as well under horizontal spillover as earlier thought. One can see when vertical changed to horizontal.

If that's not what those two are showing then what are they showing in your opinion?

Hmm, I am not sure about that. The chart shows % use not number use. So if SOFAD is low, then ROW will have a very high %.

See what you make of this chart which plots the same, but by number use. It tells a different story.

Projections No.JPG

[TeddyKoochu]

Teddy,

I think that is the beauty of a forum like this. It allows a second or third pair of eyes to run over the data. In hindsight, I do wonder whether a PM would have been a better method of discussing it with you though.

As Q says healthy and lively debate is positively advantageous. There can be a danger that what is meant as constructive criticism or a debating point can be taken more negatively. Given my direct style, I am all too aware of that. I hope everybody realizes by now that I never mean to cause offence.

I've already learnt a lot from the discussions on the forum.

I like the way that you factor in PWMB on a sliding scale - it is something I would like to incorporate myself - I haven't quite figured out how to do that yet. I think I probably overestimate it at the moment.

Conversely, I think that your CP numbers might be a little high, if they only cover Consular cases. The average monthly number for India & China combined is 1,106, so 100 a month represents 9%. In the last few years, it has been running at around 1%.

It might be something to consider, even if it combines FO cases as well.

On a fun note - I have all sorts of charts, trying desperately to see patterns from the chaos (unsuccessfully). I thought this one at least visualized how the differences look between Teddy at the high end and myself at the low end.

I don't claim it shows anything else - please treat it as a bit of fun!

Also on a fun note, I calculated the figures where Teddy and my predictions cross. It would result in SOFAD of just over 27k, which would translate to mid December 2006 in Teddy's model and around Dec 22 2006 in mine.

I don't claim that the crossing point is significant.

Projections.JPG

PS It might be worth noting that the new Spillover interpretation started being applied in FY2008.

Spec, I greatly appreciate your insights and analysis, you are not only very thorough and detailed but you are even more courteous and polite and all your posts are extremely balanced they are not overly conservative. Iam fully and completely privileged debating and learning with yourself and Q and all others on the forum. I wish my manager were also like that . The fact is that all of us know a few things but together we may know almost everything the key is to let this constructive debate go on and keep refining. Predictions and calculations is more like weather forecasting!

[bieber]

Spec, initially i thought u were little direct (read it rude), but after reading ur posts for a while i think u r very detailed, thorough.

Q, Teddy, Spec great learning experience from u guys, keep it up

[Spectator]

I think this second one is also interesting and tell the same story as first one. PLUS it shows that EB2I, contrary to common sense, is not doing as well under horizontal spillover as earlier thought. One can see when vertical changed to horizontal.

If that's not what those two are showing then what are they showing in your opinion?

Q,

I wanted to start by addressing your comment about the first graph.

If the non retrogressed Countries used all their allocation, they would use 34k and I&C would use 6k. The % for non retrogressed Countries would be 85% (34/40). That represents the theoretical normal %.

If there is Spillover of 20k (from Countries other than EB2) and non retrogressed Countries use their full allocation of 34k, then the % drops to 56.7% because it is now 34/60.

The non retrogressed Countries are not taking any visas at the expense of I&C.

It is quite possible for I&C to receive higher numbers, if the SOFAD contribution from EB1, EB4 & EB5 rises, even if EB2-Current uses its allocation. If they don't that just helps even more.

I think you have to be wary of looking back at previous years. So many different things were going on in them that they may not be directly comparable.

What I would say is that EB2-I appears to have received 37% of all available visas issued in EB2 in FY2010. I think that is a pretty good result for a single Country. I think the only other years with higher figures were as a result of Visa Recapture.

Using Teddy's figures EB2-I would receive 57% of all available EB2 visas in FY2011 or using mine 33%. I don't think either result is at all shabby.

[Spectator]

Spec, initially i thought u were little direct (read it rude), but after reading ur posts for a while i think u r very detailed, thorough.

Q, Teddy, Spec great learning experience from u guys, keep it up

bieber,

I appreciate your honest and direct comment. It is better if someone states that it is how it is perceived - certainly for me.

I came to the realization that my direct style and immediately speaking what was on my mind was being mistaken for rudeness and lack of respect - the last thing I wanted to convey.

I've tried to tone it down and I think the conversation is the better for it.

I can't promise to always get it right - but I am trying! LOL

[qesehmk]

Spec

Your explanation is valid from mathematical point of view. But I am looking at it from "who is in the line first". From that perspective EB2ROW is gaining at the expense of EB2I&C. Secondly the timing of PERM expediting also was interesting to say the least. Otherwise significant EB2I would be cleared last year itself as we had predicted in Jan 10.

Q,

I wanted to start by addressing your comment about the first graph.

If the non retrogressed Countries used all their allocation, they would use 34k and I&C would use 6k. The % for non retrogressed Countries would be 85% (34/40). That represents the theoretical normal %.

If there is Spillover of 20k (from Countries other than EB2) and non retrogressed Countries use their full allocation of 34k, then the % drops to 56.7% because it is now 34/60.

The non retrogressed Countries are not taking any visas at the expense of I&C.

It is quite possible for I&C to receive higher numbers, if the SOFAD contribution from EB1, EB4 & EB5 rises, even if EB2-Current uses its allocation. If they don't that just helps even more.

I think you have to be wary of looking back at previous years. So many different things were going on in them that they may not be directly comparable.

What I would say is that EB2-I appears to have received 37% of all available visas issued in EB2 in FY2010. I think that is a pretty good result for a single Country. I think the only other years with higher figures were as a result of Visa Recapture.

Using Teddy's figures EB2-I would receive 57% of all available EB2 visas in FY2011 or using mine 33%. I don't think either result is at all shabby.

[TeddyKoochu]

Teddy,

Let me start by saying that I enjoy our conversations immensely. I find them very stimulating and they make me think about the issues and assumptions even more. We appear to be polar opposites in that you are the ultra optimist and I am the ultra conservative. I think that is a good thing for the forum.

To answer your question:

The 70,237 and 21,533 represent all Countries and all Categories, not just EB2-ROW, Mexico & Philippines.

Lets just look at the CY2010 cases. I say this because many or most of the other years will be due to backlog, which wouldn't be a factor for FY2011 and it is these (actually FY2010) figures that the calculation in kd2008 post is based on.

The last 4 months of FY2010 had 16,064 cases approved that were submitted in CY2010 by all Countries.

We also know that there were a total of 18,050 cases submitted in CY2010 by all Countries approved in the whole of FY2010, so only 1,986 can have been approved in the first 8 months of FY2010.

That implies that 4,016 per month current (in fact not all current since the FY began in October) cases were being approved at the end of the year, compared to 248 per month over the first 8 months. That is for all Countries, not just EB2-ROW.

For EB2-ROW all we can say is that of the 16,064 cases submitted in CY2010 and approved in the last 4 months, EB2-ROW accounted for 5,799 of them.

What is missing is the corresponding breakdown by FY submission for all Countries over the last 4 months and the FY submission breakdown for ROW for the whole of FY2010. I might see if I can compile the figures from the data I have.

In fact, I have studied kd2008 post in more detail and found that the calculation was actually very conservative.

It was based only on applications submitted in the current FY. Judging by the evidence, it excluded any contribution from cases coming out of audit and largely ignores any normal cases that take longer than average to approve. We could take the % for these to be 16.26% and 5.61% respectively, although I have heard the audit % is rather higher.

If we take into account that you believe the denial rate at I-140/I-485 stage is 20%, then these would pretty much cancel each other out and the figures would remain as they are.

Spec my sincerest thanks to you, I agree that the last 4 months of 2010 surge is fairly significant and it does translate to a high pipeline and the same should be hitting the 485 queue very soon. Thanks to kd2008 for the wonderful formula besides Sangiano for the analysis. If we actually see this kind of a hit on the 485 pipeline EB2 ROW SOFAD will be far lesser than what Iam projecting and if this rate keeps up it may well be nothing. The data clearly shows that ROW + Mexico + Philippines is more than 50% and the split of EB2 to EB3 is also going more in the favor of EB2 for obvious reasons even for ROW.

Now Iam trying to somehow validate these figures trying to fit them to 2010 approvals. Now our high level assumption is that perms approved in the last 4 months did not make it to the 485 approval so for the purpose of a rough calculation lets try to calculate based on the first 8 months. 48974 perms would belong to the first 8 months. For the sake of simplicity lets assume ROW + Mexico + Philippines as 50% and EB2 to EB3 also as 50 - 50 this would give ~ 12200 ROW EB2 Perm applications. Multiplying this with the dependant factor as 2.25 we would get 27450 as the ROW figure. Assuming 10% cases did not make it or were denied for whatever reasons this figure comes to 27405. Now this way the ROW SOFAd would have been 43K - 6K (I/C Allocation) - 24K ~ 13K. However if we assume a perfect push forward rate i.e. assuming no denials or miss outs the ROW SOFAD comes to 10K something both me and you have been assuming. The early part of FY 2010 was really very slow for all perm approvals which may not have accounted for very many ROW approvals anyway I mean the later part of 2009 which is part of CY 2009 but part of FY 2010.

To conclude lets keep watching the 485 approvals as well in addition to Perm, I would rewrite my analysis by averaging the 485 approvals for EB2 ROW and EB1 over the entire year and then finding the monthly average for 2009 and compare with whatever we have in 2010 as opposed to comparing corresponding periods, this way we can average based on the whole year rather just a few months. Both these categories had favorable conditions for approval the whole year round without any cap limitations.

[qesehmk]

Teddy if I may ... let me say (and you already know this) that USCIS data is full of anamolies and sometimes you can't take the numbers completely at face value for whatever reason. e.g. if you try to use labor data in absolute terms then at least 15-20K ROW numbers from last year should've been carried into 2011. (a very rough figure mind you!)

However 485 inventory doesn't show spike in ROW inventory. The reason I would expect spike is because even ROW has its own quota and takes some time to process. But we haven';t see such spike. So there are things out there that we don';t fully understand.

So in those situations I would rather rely on different techniques - viz. using multiple data sources or using %changes rather than absolute numbers - just like we did last year.

Just a suggestion.....

p.s. - Funnily enough USCIS dashboard has stopped publishing data. The one I see is from Oct 10. And the monthly reports are as cryptic as they have ever been.

Spec my sincerest thanks to you, I agree that the last 4 months of 2010 surge is fairly significant and it does translate to a high pipeline and the same should be hitting the 485 queue very soon. Thanks to kd2008 for the wonderful formula besides Sangiano for the analysis. If we actually see this kind of a hit on the 485 pipeline EB2 ROW SOFAD will be far lesser than what Iam projecting and if this rate keeps up it may well be nothing. The data clearly shows that ROW + Mexico + Philippines is more than 50% and the split of EB2 to EB3 is also going more in the favor of EB2 for obvious reasons even for ROW.

Now Iam trying to somehow validate these figures trying to fit them to 2010 approvals. Now our high level assumption is that perms approved in the last 4 months did not make it to the 485 approval so for the purpose of a rough calculation lets try to calculate based on the first 8 months. 48974 perms would belong to the first 8 months. For the sake of simplicity lets assume ROW + Mexico + Philippines as 50% and EB2 to EB3 also as 50 - 50 this would give ~ 12200 ROW EB2 Perm applications. Multiplying this with the dependant factor as 2.25 we would get 27450 as the ROW figure. Assuming 10% cases did not make it or were denied for whatever reasons this figure comes to 27405. Now this way the ROW SOFAd would have been 43K - 6K (I/C Allocation) - 24K ~ 13K. However if we assume a perfect push forward rate i.e. assuming no denials or miss outs the ROW SOFAD comes to 10K something both me and you have been assuming. The early part of FY 2010 was really very slow for all perm approvals which may not have accounted for very many ROW approvals anyway I mean the later part of 2009 which is part of CY 2009 but part of FY 2010.

To conclude lets keep watching the 485 approvals as well in addition to Perm, I would rewrite my analysis by averaging the 485 approvals for EB2 ROW and EB1 over the entire year and then finding the monthly average for 2009 and compare with whatever we have in 2010 as opposed to comparing corresponding periods, this way we can average based on the whole year rather just a few months. Both these categories had favorable conditions for approval the whole year round without any cap limitations.