Immigration Voice - Forums - Legacy
Register Get Involved Contact Lawmakers Advocacy Discussion Image Image Image Image

Go Back   Immigration Voice > Analysis Discussion > Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins
Click to log in with Facebook
Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins Issues surrounding the retrogression of the priority dates for the various employment based categories

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-14-2008, 01:18 PM
soma soma is offline
Member
Priority Date
:
Jun-03
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Botswana
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 30
soma will become famous soon enough soma will become famous soon enough
Default can it be repeated for current FY?

I just saw an old article in immigration.com.......this is something which happened in 2002...can't it be repeated for this year? From what I've understood they did recapture the unused family visa numbers of the previous fiscal year and used the numbers for EB

the link is as follows.....

http://www.immigration.com/newsletter1/dosvisavail.html

the article is as follows..............


Projected Employment-Based Visa Availability - DOS

A pool of approximately 130,000 additional Employment-based numbers was established by the provisions outlined in AC21. The department so far has used approximately 30,000 of those numbers, and the remaining 100,000 numbers can be used if/when the regular annual employment limit is reached. During FY-2002 there were approximately 25,000 unused Family numbers, and these numbers are added to the FY-2003 Employment limit. This means that for FY-2003 the Employment limit will be approximately 165,000, plus any numbers required from the remaining AC21 pool.

Based on visa number use during the past two years the department expects the Employment-based categories to remain "Current" (with the possible exception of the Other Workers category) through at least the end of FY-2004. Changes in demand from the immigration and Naturalization Service could impact this estimate and require the AC21 "pool" to be used up earlier, resulting in some Employment categories becoming oversubscribed.


VARIOUS DETERMINATIONS OF NUMERICAL LIMITS ON IMMIGRANTS REQUIRED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT


DETERMINATION OF FAMILY PREFERENCE NUMERICAL LIMIT FOR FY-2002

Terms of the Immigration and Nationality Act:

INA 201(c) specifies that the worldwide level of family-sponsored preference immigrants for a fiscal year is equal to:

480,000,
minus the number of immigrants described in subparagraphs (A) and B) of INA 201(b)(2) who, in the previous fiscal year, were issued immigrant visas or who otherwise acquired lawful permanent resident status*,
minus the number of aliens described in subparagraph INA 201(c)(4),plus employment preference immigrant numbers which were unused during the previous fiscal year.

Under INA 201, however, the family-sponsored preference limitation for any fiscal year may not be less than 226,000.

Immediate Relative Immigrant Totals for FY-2001:

Immigrant visa workload reports received by the Department of State from consular posts worldwide show that during FY-2001 a total of 172,087 immediate relative (IR) visas were issued. This total is subject to a net reduction of 24, however, to take account of issued visas returned unused to consular offices and thus "recaptured" under INA 206.

Figures on adjustments of status at local offices of the Immigration and Naturalization Service compiled and provided by INS Headquarters indicate that a total of 273,981 immigrants were granted lawful permanent residence at INS offices in the United States during FY-2001 in the categories for spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens;

this figure includes persons who acquired permanent residence after having been admitted in nonimmigrant "K" (fiance(e)) status. Another 6 children accompanying immediate relative parents were admitted under INA 211(a).

* The immigrants described in these subparagraphs are 1) immediate relatives, i.e., spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens, 2) children admitted under INA 211(a) on the basis of prior issuance of an immigrant visa to their accompanying parent who is such immediate relative, and 3) children born to a lawful permanent resident during a temporary visit abroad.

INS admission figures record 929 children accorded permanent resident status after birth abroad to a permanent resident of the United States.

-2-

Employment Preference Number Use for FY-2001:

The employment-based preference limit for FY-2001 was 192,074. (Visa Bulletin No. 36, Vol. VIII, dated August 3, 2001 provided information on FY-2001 limitations.) A total of 186,536 of these numbers were used for FY-2001 visa issuances or INS adjustments of status and, as required by INA 203(b)(6), an additional 30 were applied to special immigrants who were issued visas or adjusted status during FY-2000 under INA 101(a)(27)(K) [certain U.S. armed forces personnel]. Another 2 were charged for children admitted under INA 211(a) accompanying parents with employment preference visas. There were also 5 employment preference visas returned unused to consular offices; the numbers assigned to these issuances were thus "recaptured" under INA 206.

Total unused numbers: 192,074 - (186,536 + 2) - 30 + 5 = 5,511.

Calculation of FY-2002 Family-Sponsored Preference Limitation:

Immediate relative visa issuances during FY-2001: 172,087
(minus net total of "recaptured" FY-2001 IR visas: - 24)
Immediate relative adjustments of status by INS: 273,981
Children admitted after birth to immediate relative visa holders: 6
Children admitted after birth abroad to lawful permanent residents: ___929
Immediate Relative etc. Total: 446,979

FY-2001 worldwide family-sponsored level figure: 480,000
minus IR etc. total calculated above: -446,979
minus aliens paroled into the United States under Section 212(d)(5) in the second preceding fiscal year(FY-2000): -

n/a*
plus unused FY-2001 employment pref. numbers: + _5,511
Total: 38,532

Since under the law the family-sponsored preference limitation for any fiscal year may not be less than 226,000, the limit for FY-2002 is fixed at:

226,000
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #2  
Old 01-14-2008, 01:28 PM
iv_only_hope iv_only_hope is offline
Member
Priority Date
:
Aug-01
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
10/22/2007
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
10/22/2007
Compare
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 78
iv_only_hope is just really nice iv_only_hope is just really nice iv_only_hope is just really nice iv_only_hope is just really nice iv_only_hope is just really nice
Default

It can be if people make it possible. Please send letters to IV and president if you already havent.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #3  
Old 01-14-2008, 03:13 PM
absaarkhan absaarkhan is offline
Member
Priority Date
:
Aug-06
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140
I485 Mailed Date
:
07/05/2007
Compare
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 76
absaarkhan has a spectacular aura about absaarkhan has a spectacular aura about absaarkhan has a spectacular aura about
Default This is Possible

Yes.
This is Possible and can be done its not easy.
All of us need to work hard for this and work as one community.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #4  
Old 01-14-2008, 03:20 PM
whitecollarslave whitecollarslave is offline
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
N/A
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 196
whitecollarslave has much to be proud of whitecollarslave has much to be proud of whitecollarslave has much to be proud of whitecollarslave has much to be proud of whitecollarslave has much to be proud of whitecollarslave has much to be proud of whitecollarslave has much to be proud of whitecollarslave has much to be proud of whitecollarslave has much to be proud of
Default two questions

This raises two questions in my mind.

1. How many family visa numbers were unused between 2002 and 2006, if any?

2. What did it take to do this? Did USCIS did this own its own? Did congress pass any bills? Did the President pass any administrative fix? (I don't recall any flower campaign or letters to the President in 2001-2002).

Anybody know this?
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #5  
Old 01-14-2008, 04:43 PM
soma soma is offline
Member
Priority Date
:
Jun-03
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Botswana
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 30
soma will become famous soon enough soma will become famous soon enough
Default

Thats what I was wondering too. Was it an adminstrative fix or a legislature fix? If it was administrative fix, why can't the same be done now, with serious retrogession hitting EB2, making the visas Unavailable by end of first quarter. And if unused visas are high enough in nos, retrogession can be gone for most of the categories, like it was in 2001-2004.

Quote:
Originally Posted by whitecollarslave View Post
This raises two questions in my mind.

1. How many family visa numbers were unused between 2002 and 2006, if any?

2. What did it take to do this? Did USCIS did this own its own? Did congress pass any bills? Did the President pass any administrative fix? (I don't recall any flower campaign or letters to the President in 2001-2002).

Anybody know this?
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #6  
Old 01-14-2008, 06:02 PM
lazycis lazycis is offline
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Feb-02
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 730
lazycis has a reputation beyond repute lazycis has a reputation beyond repute lazycis has a reputation beyond repute lazycis has a reputation beyond repute lazycis has a reputation beyond repute lazycis has a reputation beyond repute lazycis has a reputation beyond repute lazycis has a reputation beyond repute lazycis has a reputation beyond repute lazycis has a reputation beyond repute lazycis has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soma View Post
Thats what I was wondering too. Was it an adminstrative fix or a legislature fix? If it was administrative fix, why can't the same be done now, with serious retrogession hitting EB2, making the visas Unavailable by end of first quarter. And if unused visas are high enough in nos, retrogession can be gone for most of the categories, like it was in 2001-2004.
What's the issue? The rule is already in the books. Unused family-based visas from 2007 were added to the pool of employment-based visas for 2008. Same will happen for 2009.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #7  
Old 01-14-2008, 06:31 PM
soma soma is offline
Member
Priority Date
:
Jun-03
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Botswana
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 30
soma will become famous soon enough soma will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lazycis View Post
What's the issue? The rule is already in the books. Unused family-based visas from 2007 were added to the pool of employment-based visas for 2008. Same will happen for 2009.

Well.... it might not be an issue for you, its just that I wasn't aware of it and I am sure, like me there are many who were not aware of it either. So could you please enlighten me, how does those recapturing of visas work, how is it allocated? Is it distributed to retrogated categories or to all categories? And when is it distributed, begining of the FY yr or end of it? Usually what are the numbers like..can we have a data of previous years numbers of recaptured visa and how many of them were really used. If we could get the data, we could put it in our letters and highlight our plight. Since most of us out here are suffering because of retrogession and retogession is based on something which is just virtual- i.e Visa nos.

Last edited by soma; 01-14-2008 at 06:34 PM.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #8  
Old 01-14-2008, 06:43 PM
anilsal anilsal is offline
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Feb-06
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
05/05/2006
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140
I485 Mailed Date
:
06/30/2007
Compare
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,300
Blog Entries: 3
anilsal has a reputation beyond repute anilsal has a reputation beyond repute anilsal has a reputation beyond repute anilsal has a reputation beyond repute anilsal has a reputation beyond repute anilsal has a reputation beyond repute anilsal has a reputation beyond repute anilsal has a reputation beyond repute anilsal has a reputation beyond repute anilsal has a reputation beyond repute anilsal has a reputation beyond repute
Default Guys

this topic can really harm the current admin fixes campaign, because the administration can claim that the precedence of visa recapture was done legislatively (as in AC21) and the administration can pass the baton to the legislature.

You know how the legislature has helped us in recent times. Right?

I have been told that this was a one time recapture in 2001 timeframe via AC21.
__________________
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
-- Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi (Slogan of the Linux community)
- Supporting Green Peace, Chicago Public Radio, 2020 Vision and other orgs.
- Fight global warming/climate change.
(http://savetheplanet4kids.blogspot.com/)<=

Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #9  
Old 01-14-2008, 07:06 PM
whitecollarslave whitecollarslave is offline
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
N/A
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 196
whitecollarslave has much to be proud of whitecollarslave has much to be proud of whitecollarslave has much to be proud of whitecollarslave has much to be proud of whitecollarslave has much to be proud of whitecollarslave has much to be proud of whitecollarslave has much to be proud of whitecollarslave has much to be proud of whitecollarslave has much to be proud of
Default Lets get the facts straight please

Quote:
Originally Posted by janilsal View Post
this topic can really harm the current admin fixes campaign, because the administration can claim that the precedence of visa recapture was done legislatively (as in AC21) and the administration can pass the baton to the legislature.

You know how the legislature has helped us in recent times. Right?

I have been told that this was a one time recapture in 2001 timeframe via AC21.
As per lazycis this happens every year - unused family based numbers are added to the employment based numbers. As per janilsal this was a one time legislative fix. Can you both post the source of this information?

Others, please comment if you know more about this. And please, please don't just make blanket statements if you can't back up your claims.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #10  
Old 01-14-2008, 07:55 PM
anilsal anilsal is offline
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Feb-06
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
05/05/2006
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140
I485 Mailed Date
:
06/30/2007
Compare
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,300
Blog Entries: 3
anilsal has a reputation beyond repute anilsal has a reputation beyond repute anilsal has a reputation beyond repute anilsal has a reputation beyond repute anilsal has a reputation beyond repute anilsal has a reputation beyond repute anilsal has a reputation beyond repute anilsal has a reputation beyond repute anilsal has a reputation beyond repute anilsal has a reputation beyond repute anilsal has a reputation beyond repute
Default I asked

an IV core member to see if the core was aware of this carry over done in 2001/02. They know about it.

All references to EB always quote 140K as the number. So if this carry over from Family Based existed, the number 140K would never be quoted.

Think about it.
__________________
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
-- Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi (Slogan of the Linux community)
- Supporting Green Peace, Chicago Public Radio, 2020 Vision and other orgs.
- Fight global warming/climate change.
(http://savetheplanet4kids.blogspot.com/)<=

Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #11  
Old 01-14-2008, 10:58 PM
andy garcia andy garcia is offline
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Sep-05
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
11/05/2005
Chargeability
:
Venezuela
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
11/05/2005
Compare
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 381
andy garcia has much to be proud of andy garcia has much to be proud of andy garcia has much to be proud of andy garcia has much to be proud of andy garcia has much to be proud of andy garcia has much to be proud of andy garcia has much to be proud of andy garcia has much to be proud of andy garcia has much to be proud of andy garcia has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by janilsal View Post
an IV core member to see if the core was aware of this carry over done in 2001/02. They know about it.

All references to EB always quote 140K as the number. So if this carry over from Family Based existed, the number 140K would never be quoted.

Think about it.

This is from:
Pub. L. 101-649 Immigration Act of 1990
SEC. 101. WORLDWIDE LEVELS.

Worldwide Level of Employment-Based Immigrants.
(1) The worldwide level of EB immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to:

140,000, plus

the difference(if any) between the maximum number of visas which may be issued under section 203(a)(relating to FS immigrants) during the previous fiscal year and the number of visas issued under that section during that year.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #12  
Old 01-14-2008, 11:53 PM
soma soma is offline
Member
Priority Date
:
Jun-03
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Botswana
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 30
soma will become famous soon enough soma will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by janilsal View Post
an IV core member to see if the core was aware of this carry over done in 2001/02. They know about it.

All references to EB always quote 140K as the number. So if this carry over from Family Based existed, the number 140K would never be quoted.

Think about it.
I think you got it wrong, in fact you mixed up AC21 pool and recapturing of previous FY unused family based visas. From what I've understood from the link " http://www.durrani.com/newsite/news_...sp.asp?ID=1136 " is that AC21 visa pool was a one time thing where unused visas of FY 1999 and FY2000 and that amounted to about 131,000 and was used over the FY2003-FY2005 period. But I guess there is a separate provision where FB unused visas of previous fiscal year is passed on to EB visa category.

http://www.durrani.com/newsite/news_...sp.asp?ID=1136 pretty much explains most of the process.

So does anybody have any data about how many FB unused visas of 2007 FY is going to be available for this current fiscal year. If that can be found out we could all put emphasis about that in our letters and make our point about visa unavailability and wastage of visas and requirement to recapture these FB unused nos.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #13  
Old 01-15-2008, 12:06 AM
lazycis lazycis is offline
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Feb-02
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 730
lazycis has a reputation beyond repute lazycis has a reputation beyond repute lazycis has a reputation beyond repute lazycis has a reputation beyond repute lazycis has a reputation beyond repute lazycis has a reputation beyond repute lazycis has a reputation beyond repute lazycis has a reputation beyond repute lazycis has a reputation beyond repute lazycis has a reputation beyond repute lazycis has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soma View Post
Well.... it might not be an issue for you, its just that I wasn't aware of it and I am sure, like me there are many who were not aware of it either. So could you please enlighten me, how does those recapturing of visas work, how is it allocated? Is it distributed to retrogated categories or to all categories? And when is it distributed, begining of the FY yr or end of it? Usually what are the numbers like..can we have a data of previous years numbers of recaptured visa and how many of them were really used. If we could get the data, we could put it in our letters and highlight our plight. Since most of us out here are suffering because of retrogession and retogession is based on something which is just virtual- i.e Visa nos.
See this post for details. My source is the US Code, Title 8 (the INA)
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...41&postcount=4

There was a one-time recapture of unused EB-visas from the previous and that what we need to push for.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #14  
Old 01-15-2008, 12:29 AM
soma soma is offline
Member
Priority Date
:
Jun-03
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Botswana
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 30
soma will become famous soon enough soma will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lazycis View Post
See this post for details. My source is the US Code, Title 8 (the INA)
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...41&postcount=4

There was a one-time recapture of unused EB-visas from the previous and that what we need to push for.
I guess you are talking about the AC21 pool, but can that be done as an administrative fix? If thats the target, IV members need to know as thats going to rejuvinate the letter drive.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #15  
Old 01-15-2008, 01:07 AM
hopefulgc hopefulgc is offline
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Apr-04
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 488
hopefulgc has a reputation beyond repute hopefulgc has a reputation beyond repute hopefulgc has a reputation beyond repute hopefulgc has a reputation beyond repute hopefulgc has a reputation beyond repute hopefulgc has a reputation beyond repute hopefulgc has a reputation beyond repute hopefulgc has a reputation beyond repute hopefulgc has a reputation beyond repute hopefulgc has a reputation beyond repute hopefulgc has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Bump^^^^
__________________
-------------------------------------
hopefulgc
EB2 Apr 2004
Approved on 9/9/9
FL chapter: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FL_Immigration_Voice
$100 through Google Order, Plus supported almost all campaigns big and small
-:- from one great country to another
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If my post has been helpful, please consider contributing to immigrationvoiceThank you.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Filling date of 2008,Priority Date Current current any approvals jainGC Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins 10 09-03-2010 12:49 PM
Whats the reason for repeated Biometric appointment notices my_gc_wait Immigrant Visa 0 08-15-2010 12:53 PM
Should PD be current to get GC? redgreen Self-filing, documents, forms, directions, mailing. 2 10-14-2007 05:53 PM



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 (Unregistered)
(c)ImmigrationVoice.org