EB2 Predictions (Rather Calculations) - 2012

[TeddyKoochu]

Hi GURU's

what do you think the moment will be in march & april bulletion's...i know we cant calculate much as not much data is available, as of the this moment is pretty much enough for atleast 2- 3 years of visa numbers...

in ron's forum he mentioned

'Based on the information contained in Part D, as well as the announced demand data, it appears that the USCIS is not doing a very good job of processing files to completion. If this continues (and it likely will), then it is entirely possible that India and China EB2 could become current or near-current by May.'

'The Visa Office uses all known demand through about the 25th of the previous month. They take into account NVC cases that are deemed "documentarily qualified" as well as known USCIS demand for visas. They look at the available supply of visas for the upcoming month, apply the known demand to it, and try to calculate how many applicants can be given visas without exceeding the permissible supply. '

just adding this for discussion and perspective from you guys.....

Thanks for posting. This seems to be happening for the Jan & Feb VB's. Good for everyone since the dates made massive advancements in the last 2 VB's especially. Theoretically now 2 more 1 year advancements are required to make the dates literally current. The USCIS processing speed will now hold the key if they are looking at the "documentarily qualified" as the demand. Good luck to everyone in 2010 for the next VB. Let’s keep monitoring the approvals, there certainly have been brisk approvals in the early days of the month / year.

[nishant2200]

Nishant, thanks for quick reply.Can you elobarate on your last lines

I think actual GC issuance will clear 2007 assuming demand destruction is reality, around 22-24k SO, and Q1 2008 somewhere dates will stick at end of FY.

if VB retrogress and stalls at Mar/Jun 2008, when we are expecting next movement, which moves into 2010?as we are aware, CO already build pipeline for next 2 years will it be somewhere in 2013 Jan or 2013 Oct or 2014?

Whenever retrogression happens, we will be kind of back to the situation we had after the July 2007 fiasco. CO would have a well defined inventory and demand data, and after that it's his choice if he wants to go back to his annual SO, or continue QSP strategy.

If he goes back to his annual SO, whenever he shall see below 10k remaining in demand data, that's when I think he will start pulling tricks out of the bag to again make inventory.

If he goes via QSP, then I believe it will put pressure on USCIS to perform well on the categories which are marked as current (like EB1, EB2 ROW), and in any quarter, they are low on these categories, the EB2IC 485s which are sitting pre-adjudicated will win, and there would be more regular movement in dates as compared to annual SO.

For example, if dates finally stop at March 2008 for FY 2012, then in FY 2013, if CO does annual SO strategy, then the normal quota of few hundreds each month would just lead to a week or so movement every VB, until he applies annual SO in ending of FY, and that's when major date movement would happen. But if he does QSP in FY 2013 also, then depending on QSP projection, even if the QSP is projected to be 6k, dates could move as much as three months instead of the three weeks in Q1 FY 2013.

[vizcard]

This brings us somewhat back to the SOFAD discussion. Are we still thinking 20-25K this year i.e. till about Mar 2008?

[sai999]

All,

I believe due to demand destruction and low filings even with out HR 3012 we will reach End of 2008.

Gurus,

Can you guys please come up with maximum GC issuance date with hr 3012 and with out 3012.

That would bring clarity to me and so many other people.

Thanks in advance

Sai.

[Spectator]

All,

I believe due to demand destruction and low filings even with out HR 3012 we will reach End of 2008.

Gurus,

Can you guys please come up with maximum GC issuance date with hr 3012 and with out 3012.

That would bring clarity to me and so many other people.

Thanks in advance

Sai.

Sai,

To put into context what you are saying, with numbers, the Overall Ratio for CY2007 and CY2008 new applications would have to be around 0.40 to use only 25k visas for EB2-IC up to a Cut Off Date of 01JAN09 in FY2012. That compares to the 0.8 - 1.0 that I think Teddy and me use.

Using my assumptions for other factors, that is Demand Destruction of 62%, assuming 20% of PERM cases are denied at the I-140 stage ( and that may be an over estimation).

Using Teddy's assumptions, the Demand Destruction would have to be even higher - 69%.

That doesn't even take into account Porting cases or extra numbers left with PDs from FY2011. If those were factored in, then Demand Destruction of 71-76% might be required.

You may be comfortable with such extreme numbers - personally, I am not with the evidence to hand at the moment.

[gkjppp]

Whenever retrogression happens, we will be kind of back to the situation we had after the July 2007 fiasco. CO would have a well defined inventory and demand data, and after that it's his choice if he wants to go back to his annual SO, or continue QSP strategy.

If he goes back to his annual SO, whenever he shall see below 10k remaining in demand data, that's when I think he will start pulling tricks out of the bag to again make inventory.

If he goes via QSP, then I believe it will put pressure on USCIS to perform well on the categories which are marked as current (like EB1, EB2 ROW), and in any quarter, they are low on these categories, the EB2IC 485s which are sitting pre-adjudicated will win, and there would be more regular movement in dates as compared to annual SO.

For example, if dates finally stop at March 2008 for FY 2012, then in FY 2013, if CO does annual SO strategy, then the normal quota of few hundreds each month would just lead to a week or so movement every VB, until he applies annual SO in ending of FY, and that's when major date movement would happen. But if he does QSP in FY 2013 also, then depending on QSP projection, even if the QSP is projected to be 6k, dates could move as much as three months instead of the three weeks in Q1 FY 2013.

Nishant, thanks for the detailed reply. Hope next month eb2 moves atleast 3 months.Mine is mar 15 2010.

[sai999]

Sai,

To put into context what you are saying, with numbers, the Overall Ratio for CY2007 and CY2008 new applications would have to be around 0.40 to use only 25k visas for EB2-IC up to a Cut Off Date of 01JAN09 in FY2012. That compares to the 0.8 - 1.0 that I think Teddy and me use.

Using my assumptions for other factors, that is Demand Destruction of 62%, assuming 20% of PERM cases are denied at the I-140 stage ( and that may be an over estimation).

Using Teddy's assumptions, the Demand Destruction would have to be even higher - 69%.

That doesn't even take into account Porting cases or extra numbers left with PDs from FY2011. If those were factored in, then Demand Destruction of 71-76% might be required.

You may be comfortable with such extreme numbers - personally, I am not with the evidence to hand at the moment.

Once again thank you so much for your valuable time and also you proved you are man with numbers.

so i totally understand what you are saying ,i know we have 7000 cases left in the 2007 and we need to consider porting also.

Lets put in this way

2007 cases : 7000
Porting : 4000
Aug 15 -Dec 30 : 5000 (around 1000 month including I+C)
Jan 08 - Dec 08 : 1000 (around 1000 month I+C)
------------------------------------------------------------
Total : 26000

Thanks in advance
so with out HR 3012 are we still sticking to March 2008 (even demand destruction) ?

[Spectator]

Once again thank you so much for your valuable time and also you proved you are man with numbers.

so i totally understand what you are saying ,i know we have 7000 cases left in the 2007 and we need to consider porting also.

Lets put in this way

2007 cases : 7000
Porting : 4000
Aug 15 -Dec 30 : 5000 (around 1000 month including I+C)
Jan 08 - Dec 08 : 1000 (around 1000 month I+C)
------------------------------------------------------------
Total : 26000

Thanks in advance
so with out HR 3012 are we still sticking to March 2008 (even demand destruction) ?

Hi Sai,

Thanks for the response.

Here is how I see it at present.

We know from the Demand Data that there were 8k cases remaining with a PD earlier than 15APR07 as we started the year. The USCIS Inventory (and approvals) suggest this figure might be as high 10k, although that may include some Porting cases. Let's just use the 8k figure.

PWMB to the end of the backlog is a further 3.3k.

New cases to December 2007 are a further 8.7k.

January - December 2008 are 21.9k.

So that gives:

Existing Cases -------- 8.0
PWMB ------------------ 3.3
Backlog to Dec 31 07 -- 8.7

Total 2007 Cases ----- 20.0

Total 2008 Cases ----- 21.9

Total to end of 2008 - 41.9
Porting --------------- 4.0

Total ---------------- 45.9

The above figures assume an OR of 0.8.

I fully accept that the figures could be lower than that calculation.

To get as low as 1k cases per month, you need Demand Destruction of around 60%, giving an OR of 0.44.

I'm not saying that is impossible, but I would rather see some evidence to back up that level of DD. I'm not sure where that evidence is going to come from in the short term.

P.S. The definition of OR is some pages back. It is the ratio of PERM Certifications (which include EB3, but exclude Dependents) to EB2 I-485 applications (which include Dependents). So an OR of 0.8 is saying that 100 PERM Certifications for EB2 & EB3 converts to 80 EB2 I-485 applications. Without any factors being applied, the OR would be 1.33 to 1.59, depending on the EB2:EB3 split used.

[gkjppp]

Sportsfan,

hope you are busy in packing for your india trip, whats your attorney's take on next months Visa bulletin? Does it move atleast 3 more months? your attorney's words came true last time... I wish you will get insider's info this time as well.... needed 3 more months for me. it may happen in next month or i may need to wait for 2 more years. fingers crossed.

[vizcard]

Spec,
So going by your numbers - 46.5 or lower - we could see additional movement IF CO wants 50k in the pipeline, right?

I'm assuming 50k is 2 yrs with SOFAD of 25k per year.

[Spectator]

Spec,
So going by your numbers - 46.5 or lower - we could see additional movement IF CO wants 50k in the pipeline, right?

I'm assuming 50k is 2 yrs with SOFAD of 25k per year.

vizcard,

Note that the figure above is only to the end of 2008.

The Feb VB moves the Cut Off date to the end of 2009.

That represents about 56.7k + Porting etc with an OR of 0.8.

I think there may well be further movement, because I believe CO wants to see actual Demand appearing, rather than relying on USCIS figures and promises. I can't begin to guess what the future movement might be.

[vizcard]

vizcard,

Note that the figure above is only to the end of 2008.

The Feb VB moves the Cut Off date to the end of 2009.

That represents about 56.7k + Porting etc with an OR of 0.8.

I think there may well be further movement, because I believe CO wants to see actual Demand appearing, rather than relying on USCIS figures and promises. I can't begin to guess what the future movement might be.

This is true. I overlooked the 2009 portion of this.

[gkjppp]

Spec,
So going by your numbers - 46.5 or lower - we could see additional movement IF CO wants 50k in the pipeline, right?

I'm assuming 50k is 2 yrs with SOFAD of 25k per year.

I think Spec not included numbers for 2009.not sure though.

[gkjppp]

vizcard,

Note that the figure above is only to the end of 2008.

The Feb VB moves the Cut Off date to the end of 2009.

That represents about 56.7k + Porting etc with an OR of 0.8.

I think there may well be further movement, because I believe CO wants to see actual Demand appearing, rather than relying on USCIS figures and promises. I can't begin to guess what the future movement might be.

I think there may well be further movement, because I believe CO wants to see actual Demand appearing, rather than relying on USCIS figures and promises. I can't begin to guess what the future movement might be.

i like the above line, that has to happen, else i need to wait for almost 2 years more...

[leo07]

Spec, you are just awesome with numbers

Hi Sai,

Thanks for the response.

Here is how I see it at present.

We know from the Demand Data that there were 8k cases remaining with a PD earlier than 15APR07 as we started the year. The USCIS Inventory (and approvals) suggest this figure might be as high 10k, although that may include some Porting cases. Let's just use the 8k figure.

PWMB to the end of the backlog is a further 3.3k.

New cases to December 2007 are a further 8.7k.

January - December 2008 are 21.9k.

So that gives:

Existing Cases -------- 8.0
PWMB ------------------ 3.3
Backlog to Dec 31 07 -- 8.7

Total 2007 Cases ----- 20.0

Total 2008 Cases ----- 21.9

Total to end of 2008 - 41.9
Porting --------------- 4.0

Total ---------------- 45.9

The above figures assume an OR of 0.8.

I fully accept that the figures could be lower than that calculation.

To get as low as 1k cases per month, you need Demand Destruction of around 60%, giving an OR of 0.44.

I'm not saying that is impossible, but I would rather see some evidence to back up that level of DD. I'm not sure where that evidence is going to come from in the short term.

P.S. The definition of OR is some pages back. It is the ratio of PERM Certifications (which include EB3, but exclude Dependents) to EB2 I-485 applications (which include Dependents). So an OR of 0.8 is saying that 100 PERM Certifications for EB2 & EB3 converts to 80 EB2 I-485 applications. Without any factors being applied, the OR would be 1.33 to 1.59, depending on the EB2:EB3 split used.

[Desperate8]

The above numbers means its just like a mini Fiasco (representing same like 2007) and it also looks to me that for someone with 2008 PD it would take a little more than a year or may be two

[leo07]

I wouldn't call it a fiasco this time, as it is a calculated move. But, yes, in general I agree with your inference that it could take that long for 2008 filers.
Curious, if any 2008 filers got their EAD/AP? if so, is it for 1 year or two years?

The above numbers means its just like a mini Fiasco (representing same like 2007) and it also looks to me that for someone with 2008 PD it would take a little more than a year or may be two

[HR3012]

Please pardon my ignorance, but what is demand destruction?

[vizcard]

Please pardon my ignorance, but what is demand destruction?

PERMS filed that don't translate to 485s

[Nishant_imt]

Gurus,

Out of my current situation and curiosity, i was wondering why would USCIS retrogress dates when they can either just not progress the dates any further? They can keep the dates as is instead of retrogressing? I mean, if the intent is to give EAD to people waiting for long time, and making money, why retrogress, keep the dates where they are.

Thanks in Advance.

[kd2008]

Gurus,

Out of my current situation and curiosity, i was wondering why would USCIS retrogress dates when they can either just not progress the dates any further? They can keep the dates as is instead of retrogressing? I mean, if the intent is to give EAD to people waiting for long time, and making money, why retrogress, keep the dates where they are.

Thanks in Advance.

First of all, USCIS does not set the dates. It is the Department of State that sets the dates, a completely different entity than USCIS. Department of State does not like to retrogress dates. It does that because USCIS does not provide correct data on number of applications.

If dates are kept as is, USCIS will eventually approve applications more than the allowed quotas and this may violate Immigration Nationality Act.

[Nishant_imt]

Thanks for the quick reply.

First of all, USCIS does not set the dates. It is the Department of State that sets the dates, a completely different entity than USCIS. Department of State does not like to retrogress dates. It does that because USCIS does not provide correct data on number of applications.

If dates are kept as is, USCIS will eventually approve applications more than the allowed quotas and this may violate Immigration Nationality Act.

[Spectator]

Nishant_imt,

As KD said, the primary purpose of the Cut Off Dates is to control the number of visas issued to stay within the various statutory limits. That is not how they are being used at present for EB2-IC - it is to build up an Inventory.

However far the COD advance, it won't alter the number of actual visas available to EB2-IC in FY2012. Let's say that is enough to grant all qualified applicants to the end of March 2008 a GC.

For an approval to take place, the COD must be Current for the PD at the time a visa is requested.

If the COD was left at 01JAN10, then cases up to that date could also be approved. DOS could just stop issuing visas once the limit was reached in an extreme case (as they did prior to the end of FY2011).

That might be great for a person if it happened to their December 2009 PD case, but a person with a PD earlier than April 2008 who couldn't be approved because visas had been exhausted would not share that opinion.

Retrogressing the COD to a point that just covers visa availability not only ensures that limits are not exceeded, but also ensures some fairness in which PD are approved.

[ChampU]

Nishant_imt,

As KD said, the primary purpose of the Cut Off Dates is to control the number of visas issued to stay within the various statutory limits. That is not how they are being used at present for EB2-IC - it is to build up an Inventory.

However far the COD advance, it won't alter the number of actual visas available to EB2-IC in FY2012. Let's say that is enough to grant all qualified applicants to the end of March 2008 a GC.

For an approval to take place, the COD must be Current for the PD at the time a visa is requested.

If the COD was left at 01JAN10, then cases up to that date could also be approved. DOS could just stop issuing visas once the limit was reached in an extreme case (as they did prior to the end of FY2011).

That might be great for a person if it happened to their December 2009 PD case, but a person with a PD earlier than April 2008 who couldn't be approved because visas had been exhausted would not share that opinion.

Retrogressing the COD to a point that just covers visa availability not only ensures that limits are not exceeded, but also ensures some fairness in which PD are approved.

Great Explanation, Spec!!

[goforgreen]

Also does it not mean anyone with PD less 01/01/2010 can apply for a GC through CP. Retrogessing the dates will also control how many CP cases are processed outside of US.

Have not followed the recent calculations, but surprised to see lot of demand destruction in the calculations, hopefully it will turn out to be true and will benefit everyone.

The recent date movement is really a not to miss opportunity, my PD is in Dec 2007 and I've waited to file 485 for four years. Someone with a PD of late 2009 getting to file in early 2012 is a big relief with the current issues with H1 extensions and stamping.

Nishant_imt,

As KD said, the primary purpose of the Cut Off Dates is to control the number of visas issued to stay within the various statutory limits. That is not how they are being used at present for EB2-IC - it is to build up an Inventory.

However far the COD advance, it won't alter the number of actual visas available to EB2-IC in FY2012. Let's say that is enough to grant all qualified applicants to the end of March 2008 a GC.

For an approval to take place, the COD must be Current for the PD at the time a visa is requested.

If the COD was left at 01JAN10, then cases up to that date could also be approved. DOS could just stop issuing visas once the limit was reached in an extreme case (as they did prior to the end of FY2011).

That might be great for a person if it happened to their December 2009 PD case, but a person with a PD earlier than April 2008 who couldn't be approved because visas had been exhausted would not share that opinion.

Retrogressing the COD to a point that just covers visa availability not only ensures that limits are not exceeded, but also ensures some fairness in which PD are approved.