EB2 Predictions (Rather Calculations) - 2012

[nishant2200]

Nishat, I really like your explanation although I have a hard time believing that this would not be breaking the law. What if the bursts you refer to in non EB2IC happen in the last couple of months of FY2012 and there is not enough visa in those categories available because they have been doled out to EB2IC. Would that not be violating the law? Is this not what the quarterly SO supposed to prevent by allowing the excess to overflow only once every quarter?

yesman, I think now that I know QSP can be applied anytime, not just end of quarter, I would like to throw away monthly idea. And in the case you mentioned, at the very worst, the EB1 EB2ROW spike would be satisfied 2 months later in next quarter. DOS/USCIS can still call it current category and manage. I think USCIS will let know DOS of spike like this, like they did in August of this year, and the agencies will cleverly manage the PR for this.

We still cant be sure of QSP, or if QSP every quarter they want to do. Our fate is in their hands!

[suninphx]

It seems that pre july 2007 inventory world, CO made decision of only doing SO in last quarter, and allowing USCIS to catch up at the end of the year if they wanted to. In Post july 2007 world, CO seems to have made decision to apply full quarterly quota as allowed 27% max of total visas in each quarter, and hence spillover shall be QSP. I know you debate if the 5-6k for Oct VB come from FY 2011 or FY 2012 cap. If you consider they came from FY 2012 cap, QSP seems to be the most likely explanation, and since it is spillover, visas are to be given in order of PD, and hence EB2IC are moving together, instead of EB2 C marching a bit forward. And that also may explain the demand data figures which show very less reduction in the EB2 C numbers as compared to the EB2 I numbers.

With exchange of thoughts we all had over past few days I am inclined towards believing that numbers are from FY2012. There is still unexplained mismatch between Oct and Nov demand data though ?

[nishant2200]

With exchange of thoughts we all had over past few days I am inclined towards believing that numbers are from FY2012. There is still unexplained mismatch between Oct and Nov demand data though ?

suninphx I agree there is no complete vague explanation yet. But what is clear at least to me is that the reduction of around 5.4k is coming from some sort of spillover quota only.

[suninphx]

suninphx I agree there is no complete vague explanation yet. But what is clear at least to me is that the reduction of around 5.4k is coming from some sort of spillover quota only.

Yes thats most logical explanation at this point.

[skpanda]

I have been following your theory on QSP in last few posts and becoming more and more convinced that CO has decided to do QSP in post July 2007 world.

Good Job!! thanks!!

It seems that pre july 2007 inventory world, CO made decision of only doing SO in last quarter, and allowing USCIS to catch up at the end of the year if they wanted to. In Post july 2007 world, CO seems to have made decision to apply full quarterly quota as allowed 27% max of total visas in each quarter, and hence spillover shall be QSP. I know you debate if the 5-6k for Oct VB come from FY 2011 or FY 2012 cap. If you consider they came from FY 2012 cap, QSP seems to be the most likely explanation, and since it is spillover, visas are to be given in order of PD, and hence EB2IC are moving together, instead of EB2 C marching a bit forward. And that also may explain the demand data figures which show very less reduction in the EB2 C numbers as compared to the EB2 I numbers.

[Karma1979]

Hello Guys, I prepared an affidavit and I wanted to make sure that I am not missing something important. I am sorry but I find most of the activity in this thread so I am posting my affidavit here as I got no response from birth certificate thread.
Please let me know if I should add, remove or change anything.

AFFIDAVIT

English translation of same first name


I, the undersigned, Pradip (alias Pradeep) "Last name" aged – XX years, Hindu by religion, presently residing at XXXXXX, India, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare on oath that:


1. I am the deponent herein and a citizen of India.

2. I was born on XXXX, India.


3. I was married to XXX on Oct 7, 1965 in Mumbai, India.


4. I am father of my son, XXX XXXX who was born on December XXXX in Mumbai India currently residing in xxxx USA address xxxxx.


5. Pradip and Pradeep are two different ways to spell the first name from my native language of the region into English. This should not be considered name change.




6. My first name is stated as "Pradip" on my son’s birth certificate and some other relevant documents and as "Pradeep" on my son’s passport and some other relevant documents.


7. "Pradip" and "Pradeep" are phonetically accepted spelling of the same first name in India.


8. Therefore, the following first names refer to the one and the same person:

Pradeep
Pradip


The above are the variations of the same name and should not be considered name changes. I am executing this affidavit to clear any discrepancy which may arise from official documents bearing either name “Pradip” or “Pradeep”.

So I do hereby solemnly affirm that foregoing are true and correct statements.


_______________________________ ____________
Deponent Signature Date


Acknowledged and signed in the presence of ______________________, attorney counsel.



_______________________________ ____________
Attorney Signature Date

[Reader]

Can someone who has done this already share your experience?

http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showth...2175#post12175

[sreddy]

Sounds like you are planning provide this affidivt for spelling correction. Getting a birth certificate with corrected spelling is not that hard as far as my experienc and my friends experiences are concerned (both from same state, but different districts). I got my son's birth certificate reissued in right spelling recently (small spelling variation like yours). In my opinion you should approach the local authorities in India for re-issue with correct spelling. Was your bith registerd when you were born or around that time? if your birth registered recently, or corrected certificate cannot be issues, our law firm was not even willing to submit that birth certificate. Instead they wanted a birth affidivit as if birth was not registered. Thay also wanted couple of other evidences of birth date and father's name. In my case i provided them birth affidivit, school leaving certificate (it has date of birth, and father's name in right spelling), and PAN card issued by state tax commissioner. Hope that helps.

Hello Guys, I prepared an affidavit and I wanted to make sure that I am not missing something important. I am sorry but I find most of the activity in this thread so I am posting my affidavit here as I got no response from birth certificate thread.
Please let me know if I should add, remove or change anything.

AFFIDAVIT

English translation of same first name


I, the undersigned, Pradip (alias Pradeep) "Last name" aged – XX years, Hindu by religion, presently residing at XXXXXX, India, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare on oath that:


1. I am the deponent herein and a citizen of India.

2. I was born on XXXX, India.


3. I was married to XXX on Oct 7, 1965 in Mumbai, India.


4. I am father of my son, XXX XXXX who was born on December XXXX in Mumbai India currently residing in xxxx USA address xxxxx.


5. Pradip and Pradeep are two different ways to spell the first name from my native language of the region into English. This should not be considered name change.




6. My first name is stated as "Pradip" on my son’s birth certificate and some other relevant documents and as "Pradeep" on my son’s passport and some other relevant documents.


7. "Pradip" and "Pradeep" are phonetically accepted spelling of the same first name in India.


8. Therefore, the following first names refer to the one and the same person:

Pradeep
Pradip


The above are the variations of the same name and should not be considered name changes. I am executing this affidavit to clear any discrepancy which may arise from official documents bearing either name “Pradip” or “Pradeep”.

So I do hereby solemnly affirm that foregoing are true and correct statements.


_______________________________ ____________
Deponent Signature Date


Acknowledged and signed in the presence of ______________________, attorney counsel.



_______________________________ ____________
Attorney Signature Date

[TeddyKoochu]

Ok that number sounds unrealistic at least for me.
Is there any official source which confirmed from where Oct numbers are coming?

In my opinion, in absence of official source info, we should think that the numbers come from FY 2012 cap only.

5-6k is a huge number to do the trick of assigning number in September for approval in October, if that's even legal, Ron Gotcher doesnt agree, neither does Spectator I would like to think. Especially if you are going to claim visas ran out in half the month, and keep EB1, EB2 ROW demand waiting for that. They even put the verbiage in that memo to USCIS that the abrupt exhaustion is due to sudden demand you showed to us in August.

We will have to agree to disagree again. I am not sure if Ron agrees or not and He has been wrong multiple times in the past. I will wait for more concrete official proof.

suninphx in addition to what Nishant has said here are some additional indicators that these numbers are from the 2012 cap.

- On Trackitt the number of EB2 ROW and EB1 numbers in both Aug and Spe are closer to double than usual. This is indicative of actual high number of approvals in these months. Also note that May, June approvals of I140 were very high. I have noticed one thing that whenever CO announces that huge numbers are available like in May even USCIS goes into high gear on 140 and thereby diminishes the actual movement that CO would have done as he is bound to go by USCIS input at that time.
- CO commented in the bulletins about the heavy EB2 ROW and EB1 demands.
- In 2007 the reverse had happened the cap numbers were allocated to the cases when the date became current actual approvals came months later, here however the cap numbers cannot be legally allocated to the case as Apr 15 - Jul 15th were not current in the last 2 months of FY 2011.
- Even now there is a very high number of people in the inventory for both EB2 ROW and EB1 and with I485 processing fast these cases can be virtually made ready for approval in a month’s time.
- For the last 2 years USCIS has been announcing in early September that numbers are over this means that they did a neat job.
- In the inventory published on Oct 01 the demand for EB2 I/C for Apr - Jul is present in full and not reduced strength.
- Effectively 6K numbers have been consumes which is virtually equal to I/C annual cap. The demand data for Oct 2011 showed 2.5K as opposed to 8.5K in Sep 2011 the numbers are normally reduced in the demand data for the month in which the numbers are actually allocated.
All these points strongly indicate that the cutover from 2011 to 2012 was a clean one and all the approvals that came in Oct 2012 are from 2012 cap. I hope all these factors are convincing enough that these are indeed 2012 numbers.

[suninphx]

suninphx in addition to what Nishant has said here are some additional indicators that these numbers are from the 2012 cap.

- On Trackitt the number of EB2 ROW and EB1 numbers in both Aug and Spe are closer to double than usual. This is indicative of actual high number of approvals in these months. Also note that May, June approvals of I140 were very high. I have noticed one thing that whenever CO announces that huge numbers are available like in May even USCIS goes into high gear on 140 and thereby diminishes the actual movement that CO would have done as he is bound to go by USCIS input at that time.
- CO commented in the bulletins about the heavy EB2 ROW and EB1 demands.
- In 2007 the reverse had happened the cap numbers were allocated to the cases when the date became current actual approvals came months later, here however the cap numbers cannot be legally allocated to the case as Apr 15 - Jul 15th were not current in the last 2 months of FY 2011.
- Even now there is a very high number of people in the inventory for both EB2 ROW and EB1 and with I485 processing fast these cases can be virtually made ready for approval in a month’s time.
- For the last 2 years USCIS has been announcing in early September that numbers are over this means that they did a neat job.
- In the inventory published on Oct 01 the demand for EB2 I/C for Apr - Jul is present in full and not reduced strength.
- Effectively 6K numbers have been consumes which is virtually equal to I/C annual cap. The demand data for Oct 2011 showed 2.5K as opposed to 8.5K in Sep 2011 the numbers are normally reduced in the demand data for the month in which the numbers are actually allocated.
All these points strongly indicate that the cutover from 2011 to 2012 was a clean one and all the approvals that came in Oct 2012 are from 2012 cap. I hope all these factors are convincing enough that these are indeed 2012 numbers.

Teddy, thanks for detailed reply.

[Karma1979]

Thanks for your reply. My father's name in everything in India is registered as Pradip (for eg all my degrees from India, school leaving certificate etc) and on my passport my middle name is Pradeep, so everything after coming to USA (my master's degree, driver's license etc) I had to use Pradeep as my father's name. So changing the name on my birth certificate will not solve my problem. I have to get an affidavit showing that the same name can be spelled in two different ways in English.

Sounds like you are planning provide this affidivt for spelling correction. Getting a birth certificate with corrected spelling is not that hard as far as my experienc and my friends experiences are concerned (both from same state, but different districts). I got my son's birth certificate reissued in right spelling recently (small spelling variation like yours). In my opinion you should approach the local authorities in India for re-issue with correct spelling. Was your bith registerd when you were born or around that time? if your birth registered recently, or corrected certificate cannot be issues, our law firm was not even willing to submit that birth certificate. Instead they wanted a birth affidivit as if birth was not registered. Thay also wanted couple of other evidences of birth date and father's name. In my case i provided them birth affidivit, school leaving certificate (it has date of birth, and father's name in right spelling), and PAN card issued by state tax commissioner. Hope that helps.

[ghav369]

Hello, I have just registered to this site. Have been following this thread for the last two days and am impressed with the depth of the discussions regarding predictions about EB2, EB3 dates. Also noticed that quite a few members are active on the site. All the discussions interest me because I'm on EB2 and my PD is 02/10. Because of the positive moment in the last few months, I've been awaiting the Dec visa bulletin. According to the current trend, I think I would be eligible to apply for 485 in about a year. I know I'm being very optimistic, Any Comments or predictions about 02/10 PD?

[Ra.One]

Two positive directions/news flows around -
1.Cutoff dates moving favorably for many EB2 applicants
2.Immigration Bill H.R.3012 moving in positive direction

Things look good for EB2IC in general for now.

Does anyone see a reason/logic/distant array of hope for CO to make dates current for all to take new applicants? I know that the CO is not in favor of issuing EAD's but is there any situation where CO doesn't have any option but to make dates current for all, resulting into intake?

Thanks

[TeddyKoochu]

Ok that number sounds unrealistic at least for me.
Is there any official source which confirmed from where Oct numbers are coming?

10K from 3.5 months. Thats kind of high. Demand data of no previous month has shown 3K demand/month (except July). If my memory serves me then I think in general it has been around 2K to 2.3K per month. Any reason why you think that wont hold true?

Yes, I too think the estimation is too high.

I agree with Gclongwait's range of 2 to 2.3K at the max.

That's for EB2IC and EB3IC combined right? Teddy can easily produce 10K number out of this. With his conservative approach.

Sure. I like to go with PERM data and calculate myself. I can make my own assumptions in that case . I am getting around 8000 which is much less than what Teddy projected.

Here is how arrived at the 10K figure. The rough assumption per month is 3K instead of 2.5K and since the later half of July had some people already in the system I just added 1K instead of 1.5K.
Now Spec's compilation is definitely a great compilation I probably cannot come even close in terms of class and caliber. Let’s discuss some of the assumptions in that compilation, Spec has himself suggested that these assumptions need
http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showth...oved-in-FY2011
60% EB2 PERM Certifications - If we compare the Jul 2007 inventory figures the ratio is higher than 66%. People who filed in EB3 post Jul 2007 have already ported to EB2, so now when the actual filing time comes it won't be a surprise if EB2 to EB3 is 75% especially for Jul - 2007 to Dec 2007. Remember at this time there were no issues with both labor and I140. 75% may look huge but it is probably closer to reality assuming someone had 0 years of experience in 2007 and had a PD of around this time now everyone has 5 years. There is no way by which these people could be accounted for in any porting calculations because they are not in the inventory. I just met a colleague his EB3 PD was Sep 2007 however he ported to EB2 recently so these are the kind of cases that will appear suddenly.
2.05 dependent ratio - We should assume that almost everyone with that kind of PD would be married (Parents in I/C do not allow that kind of freedom - Now with this factor it would mean that only 1 in 20 families have a non USC kid, I would assume that that probably this is like a 1 in 4 case so the factor should be atleast 2.25.
- 20% I140 denial rate is fine but 85% of 2007 people remaining are slightly liberal but let’s carry them over.
Now with just these 2 factors skewed up following is the result.
8600 * (2.25/2.05) * (75/60) = 11798.
Just by slightly modifying the 2 factors slightly we arrive at 11.5K, so 10K really is a centrist value in that regard. In all my calculations I have always maintained 3K as the density for the later half of 2007 come 2008 this definitely comes down to 2.5K and then 2K.

[asankaran]

Teddy,

If I look at Trackitt data for the month of October there are only 1 or 2 cases that have filed for 485 with PD date > July 15'2007. Does it take 4-5 months to file 485 after dates become current or does it show if there is less demand after July 15'2007.

Thanks.

Here is how arrived at the 10K figure. The rough assumption per month is 3K instead of 2.5K and since the later half of July had some people already in the system I just added 1K instead of 1.5K.
Now Spec's compilation is definitely a great compilation I probably cannot come even close in terms of class and caliber. Let’s discuss some of the assumptions in that compilation, Spec has himself suggested that these assumptions need
http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showth...oved-in-FY2011
60% EB2 PERM Certifications - If we compare the Jul 2007 inventory figures the ratio is higher than 66%. People who filed in EB3 post Jul 2007 have already ported to EB2, so now when the actual filing time comes it won't be a surprise if EB2 to EB3 is 75% especially for Jul - 2007 to Dec 2007. Remember at this time there were no issues with both labor and I140. 75% may look huge but it is probably closer to reality assuming someone had 0 years of experience in 2007 and had a PD of around this time now everyone has 5 years. There is no way by which these people could be accounted for in any porting calculations because they are not in the inventory. I just met a colleague his EB3 PD was Sep 2007 however he ported to EB2 recently so these are the kind of cases that will appear suddenly.
2.05 dependent ratio - We should assume that almost everyone with that kind of PD would be married (Parents in I/C do not allow that kind of freedom - Now with this factor it would mean that only 1 in 20 families have a non USC kid, I would assume that that probably this is like a 1 in 4 case so the factor should be atleast 2.25.
- 20% I140 denial rate is fine but 85% of 2007 people remaining are slightly liberal but let’s carry them over.
Now with just these 2 factors skewed up following is the result.
8600 * (2.25/2.05) * (75/60) = 11798.
Just by slightly modifying the 2 factors slightly we arrive at 11.5K, so 10K really is a centrist value in that regard. In all my calculations I have always maintained 3K as the density for the later half of 2007 come 2008 this definitely comes down to 2.5K and then 2K.

[TeddyKoochu]

Veni

This is a good post. I think on the balance this year we should see less SOFAD by 8K.

If you think about it - if USCIS starts relaxing Kazarian then that 8K will jump to upto 16K (8K unprocessed demand from prior year + 8K from this year). But the chances are less.

It is quite worrisome that EB2IC can't take EB1 spillover for granted because EB1 continues to have demand that matches or exceeds supply. In 2011 kazarian memo held EB1 processing back. Another worrisome thing isthat kazarian is resulting in more delay than denial or EB1 approvals. Which means EB1 demand continues to be there creating the potential to not only use its own quota but also utilize any EB5 spillover.

Veni that’s a great post and great observation. I believe the analogy of a road block on an expressway perfectly fits this. People who are ahead of the block are not affected and push ahead till this time the flow sees normal but all traffic behind gets slowed down. But as soon as some lanes are opened the ones who cross the roadblock can move quite fast and in fact even without the roadblock going off 70-80% flow comes back to normal ones things are organized and regulated. We may well be entering this phase that people have understood the memo well now and RFE's arising have been answered; in a few days it will be regular flow as usual. Depending on this the impact will be felt, for sure USCIS aim is to show a lower backlog the collateral damage will be all ours just as the collateral benefit last year was all ours.

[TeddyKoochu]

[QUOTE=suninphx;12212]

Friend, how much do you think should we consider worst case porting. I am open to points given by you or anyone. All I am trying to do is to understand the picture for upcoming year(s) like all of us here. I made few points about people doing masters, and also I think everyone who went to EB3 in 2008 and onwards, has gone only to reserve the PD, they are all going to port as soon as they can.

My own analysis and teddy's input later on, showed max around 4k porting for last FY. So do we think we should stick to 4k for upcoming FY. What do you guys think. Believe me, I would be most happy myself due to vested interest.[/]

Option of doing masters was always there so nothing new there. Also, eb2,eb3 depends on job description than what degree you have. You can have PHd but still be only eligible for eb3 , based on job description.
The people who are working for big shops it's extremely difficult to do eb2 in the same company. So, in most cases they have join new company. If new company is big shop they have to wait for couple of years before their process is started. If company small/ medium size then those guys are smart enough to figure out what you will do once you get GC. Hence they also delay process as much as possible. So this evens out across the years, in my opinion. I always go with mean of 3500 as porting level because I have a feeling that when we assume ratio 70:30 for eb2:eb3 we are absorbing some numbers there. Just my thoughts. We will see how it goes. It's going to be interesting.

PS: Pending cases are really worrisome as Q and Venni pointed out.

I fully agree with you. 4K is probably the maximum porting, the 6K figure from me was probably an overstatement. However by porting should we say tat were are referring to people before Jul 07 only and call people converting after Jul 07 as regular demand, because the latter will not come up in any demand data subtraction. Also the I485 inventory correlates well with the extraordinary approvals of I140. I wish everyone well because whenever CO speaks out on good date movement looks like USCIS also accelerates things greatly and when finally decision time comes to CO the picture changes. So it is important that the movement really comes in the next bulletin. Examples of this phenomenon are in the May bulletin when CO announced 12K and then backed out due to porting fears.

[TeddyKoochu]

SOFAD may be less so may be demand (depending upon where dates stop for this FY).

The key is that if CO moves the dates fast in the next bulletin itself he can close his eyes to any demand. So it’s almost imperative from our perspective that he does it sooner, later his hands may get tied.

[TeddyKoochu]

With exchange of thoughts we all had over past few days I am inclined towards believing that numbers are from FY2012. There is still unexplained mismatch between Oct and Nov demand data though ?

Nov demand data assumed Oct approvals so if you look at it this way the 6K got consumed in Oct. Also in Oct they have some older cases as well.

[TeddyKoochu]

Teddy,

If I look at Trackitt data for the month of October there are only 1 or 2 cases that have filed for 485 with PD date > July 15'2007. Does it take 4-5 months to file 485 after dates become current or does it show if there is less demand after July 15'2007.

Thanks.

People after Jul 2007 could really not file, most of them are filling now. What you see on Trackitt are cross chargeability cases (Husband - Wife) from different countries.

[suninphx]

I fully agree with you. 4K is probably the maximum porting, the 6K figure from me was probably an overstatement. However by porting should we say tat were are referring to people before Jul 07 only and call people converting after Jul 07 as regular demand, because the latter will not come up in any demand data subtraction. Also the I485 inventory correlates well with the extraordinary approvals of I140. I wish everyone well because whenever CO speaks out on good date movement looks like USCIS also accelerates things greatly and when finally decision time comes to CO the picture changes. So it is important that the movement really comes in the next bulletin. Examples of this phenomenon are in the May bulletin when CO announced 12K and then backed out due to porting fears.

In that case we should either assume higher eb2:eb3 percentage or avg eb2:eb3 (based on prev. Years) plus porting. I have seen many places people are are considering both in their calculations.

[TeddyKoochu]

In that case we should either assume higher eb2:eb3 percentage or avg eb2:eb3 (based on prev. Years) plus porting. I have seen many places people are are considering both in their calculations.

Lemme know if this way looks ok.

Post Jul 2007 EB2: EB3 - 75:25.
Porting 3K (Only prior to Jul 2007 basically EB3 preadjudicated). This is the measurable thing based on EB3 reduction. I reduced from 4 to 3K. Agree we should have it at one place.

[suninphx]

Here is how arrived at the 10K figure. The rough assumption per month is 3K instead of 2.5K and since the later half of July had some people already in the system I just added 1K instead of 1.5K.
Now Spec's compilation is definitely a great compilation I probably cannot come even close in terms of class and caliber. Let’s discuss some of the assumptions in that compilation, Spec has himself suggested that these assumptions need
http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showth...oved-in-FY2011
60% EB2 PERM Certifications - If we compare the Jul 2007 inventory figures the ratio is higher than 66%. People who filed in EB3 post Jul 2007 have already ported to EB2, so now when the actual filing time comes it won't be a surprise if EB2 to EB3 is 75% especially for Jul - 2007 to Dec 2007. Remember at this time there were no issues with both labor and I140. 75% may look huge but it is probably closer to reality assuming someone had 0 years of experience in 2007 and had a PD of around this time now everyone has 5 years. There is no way by which these people could be accounted for in any porting calculations because they are not in the inventory. I just met a colleague his EB3 PD was Sep 2007 however he ported to EB2 recently so these are the kind of cases that will appear suddenly.
2.05 dependent ratio - We should assume that almost everyone with that kind of PD would be married (Parents in I/C do not allow that kind of freedom - Now with this factor it would mean that only 1 in 20 families have a non USC kid, I would assume that that probably this is like a 1 in 4 case so the factor should be atleast 2.25.
- 20% I140 denial rate is fine but 85% of 2007 people remaining are slightly liberal but let’s carry them over.
Now with just these 2 factors skewed up following is the result.
8600 * (2.25/2.05) * (75/60) = 11798.
Just by slightly modifying the 2 factors slightly we arrive at 11.5K, so 10K really is a centrist value in that regard. In all my calculations I have always maintained 3K as the density for the later half of 2007 come 2008 this definitely comes down to 2.5K and then 2K.

Teddy - I don't think porting is as simple as you are projecting here. Just because you got 5 years experience or did masters does not mean you automatically go into eb2. As you know there are certain steps ( which I explained in another post) before a person can port to eb2. Now these steps induce a time lag thus averaging out overall porting effort over the years. That's my main hypothesis about this porting.

Also, I do not quite really agree with 2.25 ratio. Anyways we will know in few months. Thanks for your time for detailed explanation.

[TeddyKoochu]

Teddy - I don't think porting is as simple as you are projecting here. Just because you got 5 years experience or did masters does not mean you automatically go into eb2. As you know there are certain steps ( which I explained in another post) before a person can port to eb2. Now these steps induce a time lag thus averaging out overall porting effort over the years. That's my main hypothesis about this porting.

Also, I do not quite really agree with 2.25 ratio. Anyways we will know in few months. Thanks for your time for detailed explanation.

That’s ok, I respect your opinion. What is your take on the ratio EB2 : EB3 if its 75: 25 we will still cross 10K. In fact with 70-30 we reach 10K.

[suninphx]

That’s ok, I respect your opinion. What is your take on the ratio EB2 : EB3 if its 75: 25 we wil still reach 10K. In fact with 70-30 we reach 10K.

Yeah agree. You know why I hate your opinions because they are very conservative and they are right most of the times