EB2 Predictions (Rather Calculations) - 2012

[goforgreen]

I dont think EB2 IC is down to 2-3 years to get GC, it might be true for getting EAD. For GC it still is going to be 4.5 - 5 years unless there is legislation relief. I dont think we should raise our hopes and expect to get GC in 2-3 years. Also the past record of legislation relief is very bad. The only relief in the 5-7 years has been AC21. If HR 3012 passes it will be great news for EB2 & 3 IC, but till that time it is a hell-hole of 4-5 years.

P.S Dont want to sound pessimistic but I think that is what it is.

Advancement of EB2-IC dates is not a real mystery. The pace of advancement did surprise everyone, but that the dates would advance once they pass July 2007 was well known.

- EB2-IC is a major consumer of the spillover visas from the other categories. Since the US economy still hasn't picked up after the real estate bubble burst of 2008, the demand continues to be low, and EB2-IC continues to consume about 25K SOFAD on an average.
- After the July 2007 date was passed, there was a demand cliff (0 demand). Coupled with the fact that the USCIS is exceptionally slow in processing 485 cases, dates had to be advanced rapidly to not waste any visas. A lot of 485 cases also end up in RFEs nowadays, which are not counted in demand.
- CO is also using the same strategy as he used for FB visas - advance rapidly at the beginning of FY and then stall/retrogress appropriately. This gives them a good picture of the demand. EB2-IC demand is unknown. People have come up with many models from the PERM data, but a lot of things have happened (people lost their jobs, some went back, some are stuck in H1B 221gs, multiple PERMs due to job changes and a parallel spouse application etc) that make demand anyone's guess. The dates are *very sensitive to the demand*. If the demand is 5K short for example, that's easily 3 extra months of advance.
- The GC outlier for FY 2012 continues to be March-June 2008. However after June 2008, demand density is exceptionally low all the way until the first half of 2010, so it is not unreasonable to expect that the SOFAD of FY 2013 might be able to cover this region.

To cut the story short, a combination of many factors are responsible for rapid advancement. The demand is low, and now, it is also artificially controlled (spike in H1B rejections in India for example) that will make the future wait time of EB2-IC very less - many speculate EB2 as a whole is going to be current in the next few years. SOFAD was high due to recession. Also, people are unable to apply for 485 right away for a variety of reasons (in fact, many in 2009 will postpone because they are not yet married) and their demand will be seen in later bulletins. The landscape has changed, and hence our perceptions need to change too. EB2-IC is no longer a 5 year hell-hole...it is down to a more reasonable 2-3 years and it might become current in a few years.

[mrdeeds]

KD Thanks for posting. Quite a few striking points.

USCIS comment that filing is 50% of what they expected is a combination of their expectation probably being way over the top and demand destruction. Demand destruction is definitely not at an OR of 0.5, only way to rationalize this would be that their expectation of filings was way over the top.
EB1 usage and expectation of 12K fall down is completely at odds with Trackitt where the usage is significantly higher.
34% usage till now and 45% by Feb is very much on Track. The composition of approvals will hold the key. Let us see if we get some more Oct & Nov filer approvals.
The next bulletin will likely see another 6 months of movement this will be very good news for everyone, I believe the demand data showing lower figures will be the technicality that will be used to keep the dates advancing. All the very best to everyone.

Teddy,

I respect and admire your work very much so please don't take this post as argumentative, I am just playing the devil's advocate here.

The only variable that they could have overestimated is the number of dependent filings for each primary filing. They know the number of approved I-140s. Unless they grossly overestimated the dependent ratio, where else could have they gone wrong?

When you say DD is not at 0.5, you are basing that on Trackitt etc. What's to say that our assumptions of 5% - 7% trackitt ratio is not wrong?

We all seem to be implying that there is some ulterior motive behind CO's actions and he wanting to move dates beyond those that would be reasonably fair. Their statements don't say anything like that. In fact, the AILA prediction (last bullet) hints at the USCIS predicament too in moving the dates too much in that they would have to do lot of extra work for approving EAD / AP for free. There has to be a push and a tug / deliberations between USCIS / DOS in advancing these dates and potential impact on DOS (mandate: no wasted visa numbers) and USCIS (free work in this tight budgetary environment).

CO / bulletins are not using terms like 'documentarily qualified'. They are using 'filings' implying they are looking at raw AOS filings at USCIS. Assuming a lag due to attorney workload, travel etc., there may be some lag. But they have have had 3 months of filings now to look at and they say they are seeing 50% demand.

[suninphx]

Teddy,

I respect and admire your work very much so please don't take this post as argumentative, I am just playing the devil's advocate here.

The only variable that they could have overestimated is the number of dependent filings for each primary filing. They know the number of approved I-140s. Unless they grossly overestimated the dependent ratio, where else could have they gone wrong?

When you say DD is not at 0.5, you are basing that on Trackitt etc. What's to say that our assumptions of 5% - 7% trackitt ratio is not wrong?

We all seem to be implying that there is some ulterior motive behind CO's actions and he wanting to move dates beyond those that would be reasonably fair. Their statements don't say anything like that. In fact, the AILA prediction (last bullet) hints at the USCIS predicament too in moving the dates too much in that they would have to do lot of extra work for approving EAD / AP for free. There has to be a push and a tug / deliberations between USCIS / DOS in advancing these dates and potential impact on DOS (mandate: no wasted visa numbers) and USCIS (free work in this tight budgetary environment).

Thats very logical post. I have same question...what will cause USCIS to assume extra ordinary high demand numbers. They are the ones who have actual data (like total I140s approved catagory wise etc.). And for dependent ratio also they should be very near to actual number based on previous data.

As for trackitt % , its really any ones guess. I dont think we have sufficient data to have handle on those numbers.

[kd2008]

KD Thanks for posting. Quite a few striking points.

USCIS comment that filing is 50% of what they expected is a combination of their expectation probably being way over the top and demand destruction. Demand destruction is definitely not at an OR of 0.5, only way to rationalize this would be that their expectation of filings was way over the top.
EB1 usage and expectation of 12K fall down is completely at odds with Trackitt where the usage is significantly higher.
34% usage till now and 45% by Feb is very much on Track. The composition of approvals will hold the key. Let us see if we get some more Oct & Nov filer approvals.
The next bulletin will likely see another 6 months of movement this will be very good news for everyone, I believe the demand data showing lower figures will be the technicality that will be used to keep the dates advancing. All the very best to everyone.

Teddy, please be aware that the prediction part may be Ron Gotcher's opinion and not AILA's. He is generally right, but not always. I would like folks to offer/volunteer a line by line interpretation of the AILA doc if possible.

[TeddyKoochu]

Thats very logical post. I have same question...what will cause USCIS to assume extra ordinary high demand numbers. They are the ones who have actual data (like total I140s approved catagory wise etc.). And for dependent ratio also they should be very near to actual number based on previous data.

As for trackitt % , its really any ones guess. I dont think we have sufficient data to have handle on those numbers.

Teddy,

I respect and admire your work very much so please don't take this post as argumentative, I am just playing the devil's advocate here.

The only variable that they could have overestimated is the number of dependent filings for each primary filing. They know the number of approved I-140s. Unless they grossly overestimated the dependent ratio, where else could have they gone wrong?

When you say DD is not at 0.5, you are basing that on Trackitt etc. What's to say that our assumptions of 5% - 7% trackitt ratio is not wrong?

We all seem to be implying that there is some ulterior motive behind CO's actions and he wanting to move dates beyond those that would be reasonably fair. Their statements don't say anything like that. In fact, the AILA prediction (last bullet) hints at the USCIS predicament too in moving the dates too much in that they would have to do lot of extra work for approving EAD / AP for free. There has to be a push and a tug / deliberations between USCIS / DOS in advancing these dates and potential impact on DOS (mandate: no wasted visa numbers) and USCIS (free work in this tight budgetary environment).

Refer to the following post by Spec that gives details on the OR. Trackitt is not being used here at all.
http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showth...ation-of-Terms
What I had intended to say here if OR of 1 is what they had expected if they are basing this on 1st half of 2007 where the 485 numbers correlate well with an OR of 1. Then an OR of 0.5 is actually quite drastic. Quite literally it means that 2 perms just let to just 1 485 quite a reversal! We really don't know what is their baseline from which they got 50% my assumption is that the logical baseline may have been the first half of 2007.

[suninphx]

Refer to the following post by Spec that gives details on the OR. Trackitt is not being used here at all.
http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showth...ation-of-Terms
What I had intended to say here if OR of 1 is what they had expected if they are basing this on 1st half of 2007 where the 485 numbers correlate well with an OR of 1. Then an OR of 0.5 is actually quite drastic.

Teddy,

I know that we don't (and should not) use trackitt for OR calculation. I was trying to understand your logic when you said 'USCIS expectation may be well over the top'? My question is what will make USCIS to assume 'way over the top' demand?

Update: I read you updated post now. Most likely USCIS is using OR of >1 . If we assume that to be 1.4 for calculation sake then they have got 50% of that. So that gives us OR (in our terms ) of 0.7

[kd2008]

Refer to the following post by Spec that gives details on the OR. Trackitt is not being used here at all.
http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showth...ation-of-Terms
What I had intended to say here if OR of 1 is what they had expected if they are basing this on 1st half of 2007 where the 485 numbers correlate well with an OR of 1. Then an OR of 0.5 is actually quite drastic.

Teddy, yes, indeed. USCIS is known to bungle its math, so I wouldn't be surprised if it revised its estimates. my expectation is:

USCIS expected PERM approvals x 0.97 (EB2 I -140 approval rate) x 0.7 (for EB2:EB3 split) x 2.125 as its filing numbers. It ended up getting half of this. So an overall OR may be 0.7215

[TeddyKoochu]

Teddy,

I know that we don't (and should not) use trackitt for OR calculation. I was trying to understand your logic when you said 'USCIS expectation may be well over the top'? My question is what will make USCIS to assume 'way over the top' demand?

Only they would know what baseline they are using. Ideally they should use the most recent data which is the first half of 2007 where the volume correlates well with OR of 1. For simplicity not much of a significant difference between 2007 first half and second so coming to 50% is quite drastic.
So quite literally it means that 2 perms just let to just 1 485 quite a reversal! We really don't know what is their baseline from which they got 50% my assumption is that the logical baseline may have been the first half of 2007 but only they will know, I find it hard to believe the 50% drop / decline statement.

[mrdeeds]

Refer to the following post by Spec that gives details on the OR. Trackitt is not being used here at all.
http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showth...ation-of-Terms
What I had intended to say here if OR of 1 is what they had expected if they are basing this on 1st half of 2007 where the 485 numbers correlate well with an OR of 1. Then an OR of 0.5 is actually quite drastic. Quite literally it means that 2 perms just let to just 1 485 quite a reversal !

Got that, but even with the variables of OR from Spec's post, the real unknowns in play right now as I understand it are Demand Destruction and Dependent Ratio.

In

Mr. Oppenheim also wonders whether demand is weak for visas for dependent family members, and so fewer green cards are needed.

, the CO is also wondering about Dependent Ratio.

In

Mr. Oppenheim is relying on USCIS and their estimate. USCIS thought more would come in, but 50% their estimate have actually filed an AOS. This movement is due in large part to the clearing out of the EB-2 2007 AOS cases. Mr. Oppenheim reminds AILA that DOS cannot "see" the I-140 cases that are approved and for which adjustment of status had been requested prior to September 2010, though he can "see" cases for which consular processing is requested.

, the CO is stating a fact that they are seeing 50% demand of their estimate. If I read the point correctly, it also implies that they can actually 'see' the AOS filings. I don't get what he means by DOS not being able to see cases prior to Sep 2010, anyone?

To your point about the correlation of OR 1 with 1st half of 2007 cases, could it be that the real DD came starting in 2008 and 2009 as the economy turned? Maybe the DD factor of the OR equation changed after 2007? Logically, it would make sense.

[Kanmani]

KD

I dont think USCIS would consider perm numbers as their start point for AOS estimation as we do here. They might use I-140 data as base to build their assumptions.

[suninphx]

Only they would know what baseline they are using. Ideally they should use the most recent data which is the first half of 2007 where the volume correlates well with OR of 1. For simplicity not much of a significant difference between 2007 first half and second so coming to 50% is quite drastic.
So quite literally it means that 2 perms just let to just 1 485 quite a reversal! We really don't know what is their baseline from which they got 50% my assumption is that the logical baseline may have been the first half of 2007 but only they will know, I find it hard to believe the 50% drop / decline statement.

Yeah surely DD of 50% is quite drastic. Most likely they have OR of >1 (may be in 1.4/1.5 range). Or if as Kanmani mentioned they are going by I140 numbers (which is what they should really be doing) then mix of EB2:EB3 percentage and dependent ratio they are using may be different than what we use.

[qblogfan]

You over estimated the IQ of USCIS. I don't think they are smart enough to use the formula you provided. Most of the workers in USCIS only hold high school diploma. Yes, just these idiots decided the fate of thousands of smart Phds and Masters.

Teddy, yes, indeed. USCIS is known to bungle its math, so I wouldn't be surprised if it revised its estimates. my expectation is:

USCIS expected PERM approvals x 0.97 (EB2 I -140 approval rate) x 0.7 (for EB2:EB3 split) x 2.125 as its filing numbers. It ended up getting half of this. So an overall OR may be 0.7215

[Kanmani]

I find it hard to believe the 50% drop / decline statement.

Teddy
Some weeks ago , we got a link to I-140 Receipts volume by one our forum members , Suninphx has extracted some numbers out of it which clearly showed a drastic reduction in I-140 numbers itself during 2008, 2009 .

EB2 I-140 total ( excluding NIW)

2007 - 60000
2008 - 28000
2009 - 17000
2010 - 35000

[nishant2200]

Would like to thank CM for posting analsyis in his blog in the comments section of the Feb 2012 VB predictions post, otheriwse it is AILA inside information which requires registered access. I can see the link on AILA.org, but can't access otherwise.

http://us-non-immigrants.blogspot.co...l#comment-form

His comments are praiseworthy, especially his take on the 12k figures for both EB1+EB5.

A lot of discussion already has happened on this in last few pages, I would just add one point. A VB is released around the 10th for next month, so each month, the lawyers and applicants know if they are still going to be current next month. In any month, where the VB if retrogresses, might see a bit more rush of applications, as the comfort factor will be gone. A stall would also lead to a bit of apprehension. I have seen that big law firms take it bit easy otherwise. This shouldn't be a big factor though, just a small spike.

Anyways, overall, let's continue the discussion. Very enjoyable to read.

[suninphx]

Would like to thank CM for posting analsyis in his blog in the comments section of the Feb 2012 VB predictions post, otheriwse it is AILA inside information which requires registered access. I can see the link on AILA.org, but can't access otherwise.

http://us-non-immigrants.blogspot.co...l#comment-form

His comments are praiseworthy, especially his take on the 12k figures for both EB1+EB5.

A lot of discussion already has happened on this in last few pages, I would just add one point. A VB is released around the 10th for next month, so each month, the lawyers and applicants know if they are still going to be current next month. In any month, where the VB if retrogresses, might see a bit more rush of applications, as the comfort factor will be gone. A stall would also lead to a bit of apprehension. I have seen that big law firms take it bit easy otherwise. This shouldn't be a big factor though, just a small spike.

Anyways, overall, let's continue the discussion. Very enjoyable to read.

Nishant- thanks for sharing. Its really a good read.

PS: Each time I read CM's post I keep wondering if Teddy and CM are either very good friends or is same person :d Their use of words, line of thinking match very closely. Not sure if any one else observed this.

[mrdeeds]

Teddy
Some weeks ago , we got a link to I-140 Receipts volume by one our forum members , Suninphx has extracted some numbers out of it which clearly showed a drastic reduction in I-140 numbers itself during 2008, 2009 .

EB2 I-140 total ( excluding NIW)

2007 - 60000
2008 - 28000
2009 - 17000
2010 - 35000

Kanmani, this is quite significant. Can you or someone please point me to the link? I searched but couldn't find it.

[nishant2200]

Nishant- thanks for sharing. Its really a good read.

PS: Each time I read CM's post I keep wondering if Teddy and CM are either very good friends or is same person :d Their use of words, line of thinking match very closely. Not sure if any one else observed this.

Interesting.... hmmmmm

All in all, looks good man, this entire series of events since October, unexpectedly good. Never in my dreams I had thought in Jan 2012 itself, I would have an EAD. The FY 2012 is really turning into a bonanza.

[suninphx]

Teddy
Some weeks ago , we got a link to I-140 Receipts volume by one our forum members , Suninphx has extracted some numbers out of it which clearly showed a drastic reduction in I-140 numbers itself during 2008, 2009 .

EB2 I-140 total ( excluding NIW)

2007 - 60000
2008 - 28000
2009 - 17000
2010 - 35000

While there may be reduced demand point to be noted that I140 for PDs in 2008 and 2009 were getting approved in 2010(In another words 2010 numbers have PDs from 2008/09). Having said that if there is more discussion on that data that is going to be helpful.

Sun

you were in control of that graphical representaiton right ? do you have it ?

Let me try to find that. Give me couple of hours please.

[TeddyKoochu]

Nishant- thanks for sharing. Its really a good read.

PS: Each time I read CM's post I keep wondering if Teddy and CM are either very good friends or is same person :d Their use of words, line of thinking match very closely. Not sure if any one else observed this.

Thanks I will take it as a compliment CM has ceratinly made some great obserations here.

What is tells is last year when Mr. O made statement about 12000, those EB5 visa usage numbers were baked into it. His above statement clearly siggests that while calculating projections he takes into account EB5 spillover upto EB1. Last years projection was minimum 12000 for half year but included EB5. This was the reason we didnt see much movement later in the year.

This year he has not used word"minimum", these 12000 is total projected just based on calculations (that is how I read it not sure about if those are real numbers) and includes EB5 spill up.

This chimes well with trackitt trend where EB1 usage is higher compared to last year but EB5 visa use is also high. 12000 is maximum we can expect from EB1+EB5 this year. It is too early to say but USCIS processing is still upto October 2012 and EB1 visa usage may pick up later in the year. As of now based on trackitt trend 12000 looks high ball number.

[TeddyKoochu]

While there may be reduced demand point to be noted that I140 for PDs in 2008 and 2009 were getting approved in 2010(In another words 2010 numbers have PDs from 2008/09). Having said that if there is more discussion on that data that is going to be helpful.

Sun thanks for clarifying, Kanmani I hope you agree as well.

[mrdeeds]

Let me try to find that. Give me couple of hours please.

Sun, I suspect that representation would be from page 7 on http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/c..._petitions.pdf

I found your posts around #3660 on this thread that had a good discussion on this.

[kd2008]

Please check http://aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=37970 for EB-5 FY 12 Q1 statistics

YTD FY 12 visas issues under EB5: 2364 - data on page 14.

These numbers are astounding! I guess no spillover from EB-5 anymore.

[suninphx]

Sun, I suspect that representation would be from page 7 on http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/c..._petitions.pdf

I found your posts around #3660 on this thread that had a good discussion on this.

Yes thats right. Thanks mrdeeds!

Kanmani- believe this is the link you were looking for?

[mrdeeds]

While there may be reduced demand point to be noted that I140 for PDs in 2008 and 2009 were getting approved in 2010(In another words 2010 numbers have PDs from 2008/09). Having said that if there is more discussion on that data that is going to be helpful.

Guys, is there an approximation of the numbers that had a delay in getting approved for PDs in 2008 and 2009. From a personal note, my earlier PERM with 2007 PD was audited and then denied in FY 2010.

I think it is a good point that 2008, 2009 pds were being approved in 2010 but we need a better estimation of what percentage of those PDs are reflected in 2010 and 2011 numbers. I can't imagine it to be huge as based on some other report I read, if a PERM is audited, it has a 35-40% chance of being denied. So there is a DD there as well.

I think the fact that 2007 had 60000 receipts dropped to 20 some thousand in 2008 and 2009 is a very significant point. It also plays with what we are seeing and hearing from CO's reports. I completely agree with Sun that we need more discussion on this aspect.

[mrdeeds]

You can find the breakdown data here.... http://www.qesehmk.org/forums/showth...hina-amp-India

Thanks Kanmani!