Oh no....please move it till Feb 2008...Originally Posted by veni001
Oh no....please move it till Feb 2008...
Friends, we made yet another small donation from our advertisement revenues. Thanks to you all .... whatever meagre revenues we have, we will continue to make donations to good causes. So feel free to make suggestions.
You can find the list here http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showth...s&goto=newpost
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
my explanation...
IMO, Kazarian memo will only 'delay' the processing, but will NOT have a impact on EB2IC numbers in the long run.( span of > 2 years). Any date movements that we can attribute to this memo are temporary, will have an opposite effect subsequent FY.
Let's call the total number of people who are affected by Kazarian memo, who either because of denials or fear tend apply in EB2 as:'X'
Until last year this X used to be in EB1.
Starting this year this, this X moved to Eb2.
Starting this year, EB1 spill over(SO) increased by X
Starting next year EB2 FAD will be decreased by same X
If you average out 2 year numbers, this effect must be canceled out. If I make any sense, that is
Leo - I agree broadly but a HUGE difference between EB1 and EB2 is labor, which is a big impediment for filings. Companies are often hesitant or reluctant to go through the laborious process. So I think not all EB1s will end up via EB2.
leo07,IMO, Kazarian memo will only 'delay' the processing, but will NOT have a impact on EB2IC numbers in the long run.( span of > 2 years). Any date movements that we can attribute to this memo are temporary, will have an opposite effect subsequent FY.
Let's call the total number of people who are affected by Kazarian memo, who either because of denials or fear tend apply in EB2 as:'X'
Until last year this X used to be in EB1.
Starting this year this, this X moved to Eb2.
Starting this year, EB1 spill over(SO) increased by X
Starting next year EB2 FAD will be decreased by same X
If you average out 2 year numbers, this effect must be canceled out. If I make any sense, that is
In addition, that "x" contain an average of 10k -12k EB1IC for which EB2 is retrogressed, even if you take EB1IC will be affected 50% only, then EB2I can bank on an additional 5k towards ( in-addition to regular 2.8k) backlog reduction.
Not a Legal advice/opinion, please check with good immigration attorney.
I can see a mid point between Leo and Veni's viewpoints.
Much of the lower demand that DOS have seen this year for EB1 can be attributed to the longer processing times since Kazarian, which has led to fewer cases being adjudicated in FY2011.
Even if USCIS do not address the backlog that has built up, the pipeline has now been established and I can see EB1 approvals rising in future years to nearer 30k.
That would give a potential 10k FD to EB2.
If, using figures from the above posts, only 50% of former EB1 cases are now filed in EB2 in future years, then the effective FD would reduce to 5k.
If IC accounted for 25% of those extra EB2 cases, they would have later PDs, so that would add 1.25k extra numbers to be used for the oldest IC PD cases.
Overall, the effect would be around 6-7k FAD to EB2 retrogressed cases.
You can play around with the figures to give more optimistic or pessimistic scenarios, but I don't think we will see FAD from EB1 at anything like this year's level again.
In addition, the present USCIS approach post Kazarian is controversial and AILA have pointed out that it flies in the face of other court decisions. At some point, I suspect it will be the subject of further litigation.
I agree that presently, some types of institutions that previously applied under EB1B will be hesitant to use EB2, since they don't have the experience at present. I think that will be temporary, because to retain these people, they will have to do so in the future. In the main though, it is easier to prove EB1B in an academic research setting, so the reductions in EB1B applications may simply not materialize.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
@leo / Q / Veni,
There is 1 segment of EB1 - A, artists, writers and a few others who would not be able to find direct employment with a US employer. These folks possibly cannot file in EB1-B and even EB2 so this segment will almost completely be eliminated by the Kazarian memo unless someone is really well acclaimed for example Sonu Nigam. I don't know how many cases these folks would be accounting for. Also denials are definitely on the rise but people would be hesitant to discuss or track them openly. There is no qualitative way to count or track the denials or those who cannot possibly apply in EB1-B or EB2. Many folks from India / China especially those with a Phd are applying for EB1-A simply because they are stuck in EB2 and getting the EB1 - I140 approved self filed can be more of a jackpot. EB1-A approvals are normally harder to come by when compared with EB1-B.
Spec your explanation in the facts and data seems to be absolutely perfect to me. However for those who are not inclined to read the details the following simple one may suffice. If you like you can edit what I posted below and add it at the top of your post in facts and data.
Rule A - 7% Rule across EB, to classify as retrogressed it has to be EB + FB.
Rule B - Fall down.
EB2 - India gets spillover because EB2 ROW is current since Rule A is satisfied then Rule B can be applied. So the most important thing for Eb2 I/C is that EB2 ROW stays current.
EB3 ROW - Prior to AC 21 rule B was not being applied until rule A was being applied to all categories so EB3 ROW was getting the spillover. EB3 ROW is bleeding additional numbers because Mexico and Philippines are under utilizing EB1 and EB2 and they continue to use 6-7K visas per annum which are extracted from EB3 ROW.
EB3 - I / C Unfortunately because of process streamlining and clearing of labor and to a large extent I140 backlog there are huge reserves of EB3 ROW and EB2 I/C applications. Note that the spillover rule did not change anything for EB3-I whether it goes to EB2 I/C or EB3 ROW is more a choice of devil and deep sea.
Teddy,
When EB Mexico and Philippines hasn't reached their country limit, can they even be considered a retrogressed category in visa bulletin ( listing them under a separate column for EB3) ? Shouldn't they be listed as part of ROW ?
Also there could be many other ROW countries under utilizing EB1/EB2 visa numbers. The only difference being Mexico and Philippines has older PD.
Last edited by gcq; 06-27-2011 at 09:31 AM.
The classification for retrogressed is based on EB + FB so Mexico and Philippines are classified as retrogressed. However the 7% rule is also within EB so it allows them to extract much higher numbers at the expense of EB3 ROW. Philippines has already caught up with ROW and Mexico is expected to be there soon. Even after catch up these countries will extract more because their demand under EB3 ROW is higher.
That's because they do fulfil their 7% quota when looked across EB+FB
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
thanks for your hard work and charity donations. you are doing the right thing.
A country can still have a Cut Off Date earlier than ROW if they can still reach the 7% limit (even the larger overall one) with cases with a PD earlier than the ROW Cut Off Date.
As an example, in FY2010 Mexico, before becoming Unavailable in the May 2010 VB, had a Cut Off Date of 01JUL02.
At that time ROW had a Cut Off Date of 01FEB03 and finally reached 15DEC04 in September 2010.
Despite that, EB3-M received 7,740 EB3 visas and 11,385 visas overall in EB versus the overall 7% limit for EB of 10,546 in FY2010.
Had Mexico shared the ROW Cut Off Date, who knows how many visas would have been allocated!
I suspect that EB3-M had an awful lot of 245(i) cases that were appearing out of the woodwork.
This year, the Cut Off Date for EB3-M has advanced rapidly to 01JUL05 whilst ROW now stands at 08OCT05.
It seems likely that the EB3-M Cut Off Date will be the same as ROW towards the end of the year.
Once Mexico has caught up ROW, their ability to "steal" visas from ROW should be diminished, since they will compete with ROW (and Philippines) on the same PD basis.
There are other Countries who do not reach the overall 7% limit, but they are constrained from receiving more by the 28.6% overall limit for EB3. They do not have anywhere from which to "steal" additional visa numbers.
Mexico and Philippines do so by reducing the ROW allocation within EB3 - quite unfairly in my opinion.
The only Country in ROW that uses the entire overall EB 7% (and a bit more) is South Korea because of the FB interpretation (11,889 in FY2010).
No other Country comes even remotely close. Even Philippines (6,786 in FY2010), who share the same Cut Off Date as ROW do not even approach the overall EB 7% limit .
The constraint becomes the overall number of visas available to EB3 as a whole.
Last edited by Spectator; 06-27-2011 at 10:27 AM.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
Q, + 1 you are doing a great job by donating the proceeds to charity. The amount really does not matter it is the good intentions; I hope they bring good luck to all of us and especially to you in the next VB.
Spec, Could you please give your thoughts on this?
I am imagining that EB2-C will go current sometime in FY 2012 or FY 2013 given their meager demand. This will alter the dynamics even further for EB2. I don't know how so. Mostly likely even less fall across for EB2-I.
kd,
I am not sure how EB2-C could become Current ahead of EB2-I.
Compared to India, they do have much lower demand, but it is still in excess of the 7% limit.
So, whilst the initial allocation is in place, the EB2-C Cut Off Date would progress at a faster rate than EB2-I.
However, they would still need Spillover to become Current. Since the Cut Off Dates for IC have to be the same during Spillover season, they would be constrained from moving any faster than EB2-I and could not become Current. As the disparity in the first part of the year increases, EB2-C will receive less and less of the Spillover, since China PDs will be much later than India PDs.
Unless EB2-C demand becomes less than the 7% limit, China and India have to become Current together.
Am I missing something?
Last edited by Spectator; 06-27-2011 at 10:45 AM.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
Spec - you are right. The 7% is based on EB and FB categories, not purely based on EB demand.
Good discussion...
@Veni, I see your point and agree, about I&C being the major consumers of EB1 and when they move to EB2, they stand farther in line to not impact the existing EB2 line. I did think that number would be insignificant initially, in the range of 2-2.5k max. I could very well be wrong. Thanks for your comments!
@Teddy & @Vishnu, My views over GC process and paths have changed many times over my journey and they are still evolving to say the least. So, in my view(current), if X number of people seek GC, irrespective of category/path/family/EB etc, then there WILL be X GC applications. The applications could end up in one lane or the other depending on their individual situations and whatever maximizes their chances. So, I still think that X remains constant. It can move to LHS or RHS of the equation depending on the prevailing Socio-economic & political factors.
@Spector,
Veni did bring out a good point, the more I think about it, the more I tend to agree, which I thought insignificant to begin with
Best!
I & C only account for around 30% of EB1 approvals.
Whilst that is a lot for only two Countries, there are still 70% of approvals from other Countries. That limits the effect of later PDs for EB2-IC as 70% of the new EB2 cases will be Current (or at least ahead of EB2-IC for FD).
Last edited by Spectator; 06-27-2011 at 11:02 AM.
Without an irritant, there can be no pearl.
IMO EB3 Mexico stealing numbers from EB3 ROW is not only unfair, it is wrong as per INA.
If visa office is allocating additional number to EB3 Mexico because of its less consumption in EB1/EB2 mexico, these numbers has to come from EB1/EB2 mexico quota ( affecting EB2 IC spillover fest). This direct transfer is blocked by AC21 laws. Each subcategory has a limit in itself ( 7%). The only thing visa office can do is categorize EB3-Mexico as ROW. Everything else is illegal.
In reference to the item I made in bold: Exactly, I agree that this will happen. But continue the thinking forward. The demand for EB2-C from Jan 08 onwards is dramatically different. 9K PERM approved for EB2&3-C vs 64k PERM approved for EB2&3-I. Now apply the usual 0.7 for EB2, 2.09 multiplier for I-485 count, 0.8 to account for denials, withdrawn, abandoned etc. So even if EB2-I gets all the spillover, the EB2-C dates could move much faster even when getting just 2,800 visa per year. Thereby going current. It may not happen in FY 2012, but can happen in FY 2013 or 2014 or later. But it will happen. Its something to consider, I think.
KD
Thank for your thoughts... Here is my perspective on EB2C.
By your own calculations EB2-C comes to about 9.6K 08 onwards. That's about sufficient to fulfil annual quota for EB2-C. Regardless ... to be honest EB2C is not a big factor anyway. EB2-Korea gets more visas than EB2C!!!
So whatever happens to EB2C is incosequential to EB2I. What really matters going forward is - EB1, EB2ROW and EB5. All those 3 things matter huge for EB2I. Another thing is ... EB3 - believe it or not. Thats because people might stop filing in EB3 altogether. that puts stress on EB2.
So the real solution to this whole thing is changing EB numbers or at least getting some temporary relief (visa recapture) or permanent relief ( counting only primary applicant).
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
Q, thank you for your insight. From what you explained it follows that if only one country is backlogged major way in EB2 then the advocating for any relief sounds hollow. No politician is ever going to buy it. So it makes it increasingly important to get a fix before EB2-C goes current. My 2-cents.
Q, I have a quick question. I noticed South Korea got around 5000 EB2 annually in the past several years. Why didn't they get retrogressed? South Koreans never had to wait for a long time for GC. Most of them get EB2 GC in 1 or 2 years. They exceeded EB2 annual quota every year.
Don't forget EB3! Most of them are backlogged and retrogressed.
Spec probably has addressed this very eloquently somewhere else. Basically the answer is that DoS looks across EB & FB for 7%. Since S Korea has very little FB demand they are given upto 7% (of EB+FB) in EB.
Yet another example of how laws are interpreted to meet policy objectives.
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
There are currently 10 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 10 guests)
Posting Permissions
