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

Go Back   Immigration Voice > Immigration Voice Issues and Congressional updates > IV Agenda and Legislative Updates
Click to log in with Facebook
IV Agenda and Legislative Updates Immigration Voice's Agenda and Legislative Updates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 04-10-2010, 11:28 AM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Feb-08
Category
:
EB1A
I140 Mailed Date
:
07/23/2009
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
12/29/2009
Compare
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 395
kondur_007 has a reputation beyond repute kondur_007 has a reputation beyond repute kondur_007 has a reputation beyond repute kondur_007 has a reputation beyond repute kondur_007 has a reputation beyond repute kondur_007 has a reputation beyond repute kondur_007 has a reputation beyond repute kondur_007 has a reputation beyond repute kondur_007 has a reputation beyond repute kondur_007 has a reputation beyond repute kondur_007 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by transpass View Post
Does anyone have numbers for spillover last year category wise? I mean, last year how many EB4, EB5 and EB1 left out visas got spilled over to EB2? Thanks...
Here are the details for last year and years before:

(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010)

Employment Visas 2009

Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020

Theoretical values without spillover

EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012

Actual values with spillover

EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give

What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.

In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.

This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.

I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.

I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.

Additional notes from subsequent posts:


There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :

EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.

That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.

There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :

EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.

That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.

The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)

EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)

That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.

This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"

Hope this was the info you were asking for.
__________________
PERM filed: Feb 2008 Chicago Processing Center
PERM approved: March 2008
I 140 filed: April 2008 Nebraska Service Center
I 140 approved: Sep 2008 Nebraska Service Center
EB1A: I 140 filed: July 2009. Approved 12/09
EB2 NIW: I 140 filed: July 2009. Approved 12/09
I-485 filed Dec 2009
I-485 approved April 2010

Last edited by kondur_007; 04-10-2010 at 11:32 AM.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #32  
Old 04-10-2010, 11:28 AM
Member
Priority Date
:
Jul-03
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
05/01/2007
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
07/27/2007
Compare
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 74
imneedy is a jewel in the rough imneedy is a jewel in the rough imneedy is a jewel in the rough
Talking :d

Quote:
Originally Posted by chanduv23 View Post
buying a hose is not substantial investment. It may cost $20 to $50 based on the length you need
lol :d
__________________
EB 3 India PD____________: 21 July 2003
I-140 (Premium) Approved_: 15 May 2007 (No LUD after that)
I-485 Filed on___________: 30 Jul 2007 (LUD: 25 Oct 2007, 11 Aug 2010)
I-140 EB2 Approved ______: 1 Apr 2010 (with incorrect priority date of Jan 2006) (LUD: 11 Aug 2010)
Submitted for Interfiling soon afterward
Greened - 10 Oct 2010
"We must become the change we want to see" - MG
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #33  
Old 04-10-2010, 11:40 AM
Donor
Priority Date
:
Feb-05
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
08/17/2006
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
07/12/2007
Compare
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 498
ronhira has a reputation beyond repute ronhira has a reputation beyond repute ronhira has a reputation beyond repute ronhira has a reputation beyond repute ronhira has a reputation beyond repute ronhira has a reputation beyond repute ronhira has a reputation beyond repute ronhira has a reputation beyond repute ronhira has a reputation beyond repute ronhira has a reputation beyond repute ronhira has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by khodalmd View Post
Time and again I am telling. EB 3 problem is due to 245(i) cases. Once 245(i) primaries are over, their dependent will come into the picture, who are waiting back home. All 245(i) cases have PD before April 2001. For time being, EB3 I or Mexico move beyond April 01 but again retrogress back to the April 01 when cases are accumulate at CP. This is the reason why EB3 I and Mexico is not moving since last many years.
If some one is not convince with me, request under FOIA
1. How many cases filed under 245(i) in India, Mexico, and ROW
2. How many cases filed under I 824 Follow to Join since 2007?
what r u...... y don't u file foia to prove your twisted racist theories.... y r u always attacking mexican immigrants or 245(i)...... 245(i) was a LEGAL provision in the law...... who made that law..... congress....... assuming any merit to u'r racist theory.... y r u faulting the people who filed 245(i)..... y not fault the congress for passing 245(i) & not passing immigration bill....
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


0 out of 4 members found this post helpful.
  #34  
Old 04-10-2010, 12:14 PM
Donor
Priority Date
:
May-04
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
08/14/2007
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140+I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
08/14/2007
Compare
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 997
gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by khodalmd View Post
Time and again I am telling. EB 3 problem is due to 245(i) cases. Once 245(i) primaries are over, their dependent will come into the picture, who are waiting back home. All 245(i) cases have PD before April 2001. For time being, EB3 I or Mexico move beyond April 01 but again retrogress back to the April 01 when cases are accumulate at CP. This is the reason why EB3 I and Mexico is not moving since last many years.
If some one is not convince with me, request under FOIA
1. How many cases filed under 245(i) in India, Mexico, and ROW
2. How many cases filed under I 824 Follow to Join since 2007?
I agree with your observations except the point that it will retrogress again to 2001.

As dates have moved beyond April 2001, I don't believe there will be any more 245(i) s coming into the queue. Dependents of 245(i) applicants would have a PD of Apr 2001 or before. They already got their GCs by now. 245(i) applicants would have filed for their dependents already. If these 245(i) applicants file for relatives, they WON'T have 2001 PD.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Last edited by gc28262; 04-10-2010 at 12:16 PM.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #35  
Old 04-10-2010, 01:07 PM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 310
transpass has a reputation beyond repute transpass has a reputation beyond repute transpass has a reputation beyond repute transpass has a reputation beyond repute transpass has a reputation beyond repute transpass has a reputation beyond repute transpass has a reputation beyond repute transpass has a reputation beyond repute transpass has a reputation beyond repute transpass has a reputation beyond repute transpass has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kondur_007 View Post
Here are the details for last year and years before:

(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010)

Employment Visas 2009

Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020

Theoretical values without spillover

EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012

Actual values with spillover

EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give

What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.

In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.

This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.

I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.

I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.

Additional notes from subsequent posts:


There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :

EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.

That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.

There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :

EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.

That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.

The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)

EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)

That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.

This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"

Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.

Now,

1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?

2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?

3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?

4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...

http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20C...203-8-2010.pdf


Thanks,

Last edited by transpass; 04-10-2010 at 01:27 PM. Reason: added 4th point...
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #36  
Old 04-10-2010, 01:28 PM
Donor
Priority Date
:
Feb-08
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 433
vbkris77 has a reputation beyond repute vbkris77 has a reputation beyond repute vbkris77 has a reputation beyond repute vbkris77 has a reputation beyond repute vbkris77 has a reputation beyond repute vbkris77 has a reputation beyond repute vbkris77 has a reputation beyond repute vbkris77 has a reputation beyond repute vbkris77 has a reputation beyond repute vbkris77 has a reputation beyond repute vbkris77 has a reputation beyond repute
Default My take on it!!!

What you said is absolutely true. EB1 Last year and the year before saw lot more approvals than usual. My reasoning is that even though EB1 was current for all along, they never really approved I140s to give them GC. So In the overall clearing of I140s, CIS cleared lot more EB1 cases and became approved during last 2 years. If you look at the I140 completion in the dash board, it will be very much clear that the completions came down to 4 digits for each month from 5 digits. Receipts continued to be less than 5K per month.

This year, we may see a big dip in EB1 cases and larger EB2 spillover. EB4 spillover is ruled out after this bulletin.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kondur_007 View Post
Here are the details for last year and years before:

(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010)

Employment Visas 2009

Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020

Theoretical values without spillover

EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012

Actual values with spillover

EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give

What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.

In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.

This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.

I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.

I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.

Additional notes from subsequent posts:


There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :

EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.

That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.

There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :

EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.

That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.

The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)

EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)

That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.

This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"

Hope this was the info you were asking for.
__________________
----------------------------------------------------------
Beware!! Cold Country... Visit our MN Chapter at
http://groups.google.com/group/iv-mn-mw
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #37  
Old 04-10-2010, 04:34 PM
Banned
Priority Date
:
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Processing Stage
:
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 40
snram4 is infamous around these parts snram4 is infamous around these parts snram4 is infamous around these parts snram4 is infamous around these parts snram4 is infamous around these parts snram4 is infamous around these parts snram4 is infamous around these parts snram4 is infamous around these parts snram4 is infamous around these parts snram4 is infamous around these parts snram4 is infamous around these parts
Default

One of the main reason for EB3 in 2001 is From 2000 to 2003 they increased H1b from 65 to 180K. Most people came those time was BA, BSC and B TECH. So most would have applied by EB3 and also from 2000 more than 60% of H1bs were Indians. It may take a few more years to clear 2001 to 2003. But there could be some spill over from Eb2 in 2 years time. So from 2012 Eb3 may move fast. Still 7 to 10 years waiting period may not change unless some bil or CIR is passed. But it should be noted that H1B Cap applications received this year is around 13500. So past 2 years slow down will make PD to improve.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GCperm View Post
We are looking at Annual Report of Immigrant Visa Applicants - http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/WaitingListItem.pdf

On Page 1. - "The petitions of applicants who will be processed at an overseas post are forwarded by CIS to the Department of State"

Our Interpretation: As USCIS processes I140 Applications, and I140 Applications has Field for Consular Processing options, they would Direct those Applications to DOS Via Above Process.

Question:
Are this Numbers are total VISA demand recorded at DOS?

Anybody other Views?
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
  #38  
Old 04-10-2010, 04:44 PM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Feb-08
Category
:
EB1A
I140 Mailed Date
:
07/23/2009
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
12/29/2009
Compare
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 395
kondur_007 has a reputation beyond repute kondur_007 has a reputation beyond repute kondur_007 has a reputation beyond repute kondur_007 has a reputation beyond repute kondur_007 has a reputation beyond repute kondur_007 has a reputation beyond repute kondur_007 has a reputation beyond repute kondur_007 has a reputation beyond repute kondur_007 has a reputation beyond repute kondur_007 has a reputation beyond repute kondur_007 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by transpass View Post
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.

Now,

1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?

2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?

3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?

4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...

http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20C...203-8-2010.pdf


Thanks,
Here is what I think; possible answers/comments. I am not an expert but am thinking following:

1. Any category being "current" is based on "DOS's guesstimate" based on demand numbers they receive and so it is never "perfect". So yes, you are true that technically EB1 should be retrogressed "slightly", but considering the small number of spillover (now called fall down numbers) it used, it may not have been able to be predicted prior to the end of fiscal year.

2. That is the biggest hope and assumption that there will be more fall down from EB5 and EB1 due to "economy". Caveat is, more and more people are trying to switch to "current" categories and so actual usage may not be commensurate with "economy". We have never been given any "usage data". So everything is a pure guess on this front. Looking at data, I honestly do not see any difference in number of EB1 cases from 2008-2009-2010.

3. Yes, it is due to "spillover" from Family based category. (This is where DOS is using the word "spillover" and any visa number that go from one EB to another EB category, they all it "fall across" and "fall down"). These numbers used to be higher before and now lower as they are more efficient in using as many numbers as possible for a particular category.

4. Pending 485 data is extremely deceptive for "current" categories. Look at the approval timeframe of EB2 ROW or EB1 cases; majority of them are approved before ever counted as "pending". Remember. "pending cases" DO NOT reflect "usage".

The main thing missing in all these is the "USAGE", this should be a very easy information that can be made available by DOS, but they have not. If I had one "wish" to get one piece of info; would be this: "number of visa used in each category every month and YTD". Without that info, no prediction of spillover/fall down-across is ever possible.
__________________
PERM filed: Feb 2008 Chicago Processing Center
PERM approved: March 2008
I 140 filed: April 2008 Nebraska Service Center
I 140 approved: Sep 2008 Nebraska Service Center
EB1A: I 140 filed: July 2009. Approved 12/09
EB2 NIW: I 140 filed: July 2009. Approved 12/09
I-485 filed Dec 2009
I-485 approved April 2010
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #39  
Old 04-10-2010, 11:24 PM
Donor
Priority Date
:
May-04
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
08/14/2007
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140+I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
08/14/2007
Compare
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 997
gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coopheal View Post
and what is your point?
EB3-I won't retrogress back to 2001 again. It will keep moving forward at slow but steady pace.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #40  
Old 04-11-2010, 02:05 AM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
N/A
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 141
rodnyb has a reputation beyond repute rodnyb has a reputation beyond repute rodnyb has a reputation beyond repute rodnyb has a reputation beyond repute rodnyb has a reputation beyond repute rodnyb has a reputation beyond repute rodnyb has a reputation beyond repute rodnyb has a reputation beyond repute rodnyb has a reputation beyond repute rodnyb has a reputation beyond repute rodnyb has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I agree wholeheartedly. CIS has the burden for cases. DOS should do sth. too, not just a number game. They should have exact visa approval number published every months. Due to this past pdf error, I have concerns on all their numbers published.. did they give enough numbers to CIS.. are all those reports which show they approved 140K EB real?

If we know, they issued only 50K in 11 months, and we should have concern they can let CIS approve 90K in one month due to spill over... make sense? Or they can make it up some way?

Man, we paid for all these, and they even didn't blink...

Here, DOS has a bigger role than CIS...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kondur_007 View Post
Here is what I think; possible answers/comments. I am not an expert but am thinking following:

1. Any category being "current" is based on "DOS's guesstimate" based on demand numbers they receive and so it is never "perfect". So yes, you are true that technically EB1 should be retrogressed "slightly", but considering the small number of spillover (now called fall down numbers) it used, it may not have been able to be predicted prior to the end of fiscal year.

2. That is the biggest hope and assumption that there will be more fall down from EB5 and EB1 due to "economy". Caveat is, more and more people are trying to switch to "current" categories and so actual usage may not be commensurate with "economy". We have never been given any "usage data". So everything is a pure guess on this front. Looking at data, I honestly do not see any difference in number of EB1 cases from 2008-2009-2010.

3. Yes, it is due to "spillover" from Family based category. (This is where DOS is using the word "spillover" and any visa number that go from one EB to another EB category, they all it "fall across" and "fall down"). These numbers used to be higher before and now lower as they are more efficient in using as many numbers as possible for a particular category.

4. Pending 485 data is extremely deceptive for "current" categories. Look at the approval timeframe of EB2 ROW or EB1 cases; majority of them are approved before ever counted as "pending". Remember. "pending cases" DO NOT reflect "usage".

The main thing missing in all these is the "USAGE", this should be a very easy information that can be made available by DOS, but they have not. If I had one "wish" to get one piece of info; would be this: "number of visa used in each category every month and YTD". Without that info, no prediction of spillover/fall down-across is ever possible.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #41  
Old 04-11-2010, 03:07 PM
Donor
Priority Date
:
May-04
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
08/14/2007
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140+I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
08/14/2007
Compare
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 997
gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coopheal View Post
And you inferred this from EB3 Mexico becoming Unavailable in month of May.
This was not inferred from Mexico EB3. I was explaining why EB3 Mexico became unavailable. Any category becoming U is nothing alarming. It just means there are no more visas available for that category for that year.

As for April 2001, it is the dreaded date for EB3-I India. The reason being all 245(i) applicants had a PD of April-2001 or earlier. If you haven't read 245(i) and its impact on EB3-I, please educate yourself regarding 245(i).
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #42  
Old 04-11-2010, 07:05 PM
Donor
Priority Date
:
Feb-05
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
08/17/2006
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
07/12/2007
Compare
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 498
ronhira has a reputation beyond repute ronhira has a reputation beyond repute ronhira has a reputation beyond repute ronhira has a reputation beyond repute ronhira has a reputation beyond repute ronhira has a reputation beyond repute ronhira has a reputation beyond repute ronhira has a reputation beyond repute ronhira has a reputation beyond repute ronhira has a reputation beyond repute ronhira has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by khodalmd View Post
Good point. I appreciate your hard work.

This may be helpful
245(i), Adjustment of Status Permanent Residence, Life Act | V Visa, K Visa

GRANDFATHERED DERIVATIVE FAMILY MEMBERS

Grandfathered children and spouses: Accepting Applications for Adjustment of Status Under Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 06/10/1999 INS memo

Section 245(i) defines the term "beneficiary" to include a spouse or
child "eligible to receive a visa under section 203(d) of the Act." This
applies to spouses or children "accompanying or following to join" the
principal alien.


An alien who is accompanying or following to join an alien who is a
grandfathered alien is thus also the "beneficiary" of the grandfathered
petition or labor certification application and is also grandfathered.

Since an alien's ability to characterize himself or herself as
"accompanying or following to join" the principal alien depends on the
existence of a qualifying relationship at the time of the principal's
adjustment, adjudicators must determine whether the relationship existed
prior to the time the alien adjusted status. Officers should remember
that the burden of proof to establish the qualifying relationship rests
with the applicant.

The spouse or child of a grandfathered alien as of January 14 is also
grandfathered for 245(i) purposes. This means that the spouse or child
is grandfathered irrespective of whether the spouse or child adjusts
with the principal. The pre-January 15 spouse or child also are
grandfathered even after losing the status of spouse or child, such as
by divorce or by becoming 21 years of age, by the petitionerís
naturalization, through the parentsí divorce, or even if the principal
or petitioner dies. Grandfathered eligibility attaches to the person and
not the petition. Many aliens with pending, grandfathered petitions or
labor certification applications will marry or have children after the
qualifying petition or application was filed but before adjustment of
status. These "after-acquired" children and spouses are allowed to
adjust under 245(i) as long as they acquire the status of a spouse or
child before the principal alien ultimately adjusts status.

An alien who becomes the child or spouse of a grandfathered alien
after the alien adjusts status or immigrates cannot adjust status under
section 245(i) unless he or she has an independent basis for
grandfathering.

"Aged-out" children

Often, a principal alien who has filed a visa petition or labor
certification application will have a "child" who reaches the age of 21,
and thus no longer meet the statutory definition of child, before the
petition or application is approved or the principal alien adjusts
status. However, such an "aged-out" beneficiary will remain a
beneficiary for the purpose of determining whether he or she may use
section 245(i) to adjust status.

Eligibility: An alien who is included in the categories of
restricted aliens under 245.1(b) and meets the definition of a
``grandfathered alien'' may apply for adjustment of status under section
245 of the Act if the alien meets the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)
through (b)(7) of this section:

(1) Is physically present in the United States;
(2) Is eligible for immigrant classification and has an immigrant visa
number immediately available at the time of filing for adjustment of
status;
(3) Is not inadmissible from the United States under any provision of
section 212 of the Act, or all grounds for inadmissibility have been
waived;
(4) Properly files Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent
Residence or Adjust Status on or after October 1, 1994, with the
required fee for that application;
(5) Properly files Supplement A to Form I-485 on or after October 1,
1994;
(6) Pays an additional sum of $1,000, unless payment of the additional
sum is not required under section 245(i) of the Act; and
(7) Will adjust status under section 245 of the Act to that of lawful
permanent resident of the United States on or after October 1, 1994.
hypocrisy as its best...... need another quote from gandhi....

u'r saying its crime for others to file application of their spouse & children...... aren't u waiting for the aos approval for u'r child...... but if other files for their family member..... according to u its a crime....
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


0 out of 4 members found this post helpful.
  #43  
Old 04-11-2010, 10:03 PM
Donor
Priority Date
:
May-04
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
08/14/2007
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140+I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
08/14/2007
Compare
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 997
gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of gc28262 has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by khodalmd View Post
Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your question. Let me explain you in details.
I am not sure about Mexican illegals but I can tell about Indian.

Normally person come here illegally alone. Very few people are coming here with spouse. it is absolutely sure that their kids are at backhome with other family members. Many illegal people have used 245(i) and all have priority date before April 2001 as before 2001 they should have to file labor. Fraudulent practice was prevailed in the small business community. They used to file labor certificate in dummy name and once it approve, they are selling to others (labor substitution was legal at that time). Most of 245(i) cases have purchased labor with big $$$. All the 245(i) were approved from 2002 to now. Their case is counting in EB3 category. Once persons case is approved, he will file I 824 (Follow to join family members) for wife and/or kids who are waiting in India. Once I 824 approve, case is transferred to respective CP at back home. It is slow process and take any where from 1 year to 4 to 5 years in some cases. This cases are consuming EB3 quota. We don't know how many cases are in pipeline. But I know few people whose GC was approved under 245(i) and their kids are waiting at Back home. This is the reason why EB3 India is struck around 2001 for many years. If still lot of 245(i) derivative cases are in pipeline, it can retrogress back to April 2001.

I am highlighting truth so that we should not make any mistake in next CIR (same channel and resources for EB legals and 13 millions illegal). if history repeat for CIR, it may not hurt all legal EB community who are reading this post today but future generation EB legal have big blow.

My dear friend Ron Hira is calling me racist !! I always laughing for his immaturity (In fact, I ignore his post). Insisting for following rule is racist. Opposing people who kept EB legal provisions hostages since 2005 is racist??? people in this forum are much smart who is talking what !!!

I remember Mahatma Ganghi's quotes:

" I can wait 100 years for freedom but don't want it through violent route"
khodalmd,

Thanks for the clarification. I think you are right in terms of "follow to join" 245(i) cases. EB3-I may not be out of 245(i) bump yet.

Here is a USCIS memo regarding 245(i)

http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/245i.pdf

Relevant portion:

"Many aliens with pending, grandfathered petitions or labor certification applications will marry or have children after the qualifying petition or application was filed but before adjustment of status. These "after-acquired" children and spouses are allowed to adjust under 245(i) as long as they acquire the status of a spouse or child before the principal alien ultimately adjusts status."

On another note, wouldn't the spouses/children of 245(i) applicants be eligible for "follow to join" applications when the primary applicant's application is still pending ? Why would they wait till the approval of primary's AOS application ?

Last edited by gc28262; 04-11-2010 at 10:45 PM.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #44  
Old 04-13-2010, 02:09 PM
Donor
Priority Date
:
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Processing Stage
:
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 126
India_USA is a splendid one to behold India_USA is a splendid one to behold India_USA is a splendid one to behold India_USA is a splendid one to behold India_USA is a splendid one to behold India_USA is a splendid one to behold India_USA is a splendid one to behold India_USA is a splendid one to behold
Default

I am new to this country........reading the posts from members, I wonder if we did the right thing in coming to the usa? Life in India is improving a lot.
Planning to study here.......is it better to go back after a couple of years?
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 On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Prediction for APR 2010 bulletin jcrajput Visa Bulletin, status tracker, processing times 3 03-05-2010 09:47 PM
Jan 2010 Bulletin out ! willIWill Visa Bulletin, status tracker, processing times 3 12-10-2009 04:37 PM
Dec 2010 Bulletin is out another one IV Agenda and Legislative Updates 11 11-14-2007 07:59 PM



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 (Unregistered)
(c)ImmigrationVoice.org