May 2010 Bulletin is out!!!!!!!!!!!! [Archive]

nitinboston

04-09-2010, 04:19 PM

Dear Mrs. Hillary Clinton
Heartfelt thanks for making such an effort to answer consumer grievances. My Admiration for this administration and their efforts to improve communication is growing exponentially every day. God Bless you and God Bless America.
We are wringing these questions in effort to understand the VISA allocation processes followed by DOS. Also how it affects effectively petitioners live to plan their future, travel, Buying house etc...
1.0) Is IVACS primary application for tracking VISA requests from USCIS, Consular posts?
Rationale: Any Software/Application used by DOS should be single source for data entry of all the new application.
1.1) Does IVACS system (DOS’s Inventory system) connects electronically to USCIS system, Consular posts or NVC or any other agencies for VISA demand requests?
Rationale: Any Software/Application used by DOS need talk to Client System (USCIS, Consular posts, NVC or other agencies) every month system for effectively moving VISA bulletin every month.

1.2) In Absence of Interface – Does IVACS system receive VISA demand sent manually through flat file or spreadsheet?
Rationale: In absence of electronic interface DOS need to manually receive data for effectively predicting VISA bulletin every month.
2.0) How many Employment-based I485 VISA demands are pending at USCIS, NVC, Consular posts?
Rationale: We are trying to get Employment based pending applications.
3.0) IS this last Pending EmploymentDemandUsedForCutOffDates.pdf on 4/8/2010 - http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/EmploymentDemandUsedForCutOffDates.pdf includes all the Employment based I485 VISA demand?

Rationale: We are trying to confirm data received are all inclusive.

4.0) Can DOS Enhance/publish table for “total number of VISA available…” as on report preparation date, rather than total Fiscal availability. As per table showed below,
Rationale: This will help applicants to estimate date of approval and plan for buying house, make major move etc.

Preference China Demand India Demand Maxico Philippines ROW Worldwide limit
Beginning Demand Allocated this month End Demand Allocated this fiscal Beginning Demand Allocated this month End Demand Allocated this fiscal Beginning Demand Allocated this month End Demand Allocated this fiscal Beginning Demand Allocated this month End Demand Allocated this fiscal Beginning Demand Allocated this month End Demand Allocated this fiscal
E1
E2
E3
E4
E5

5.0) Can DOS generate monthly VISA returns report from USCIS, NVC, Consular posts or any other agencies that demands Employment VISA?
Rationale: This will help us understand how much visa were available for reallocation.

6.0) INA section Sec 201 (2) mentions usages of visa per “Calendar Quarter” with maximum limit of 27% per quarter. As EB2 & EB3 categories are retro gassed Are Minimum 140k/4 Visa's consumed every quarter? If no which section of INA being applied to not to do so?
Rationale: To understand DOS’s interpretation and application of the law.
7.0) Where we can find DOS published monthly EB/FB permanent residency VISA demand report with country of chargeability, Employment based category (for e.g. EB1, EB2, EB3, …), similar to report published by DOL.
Rationale: This will help applicants to estimate date of approval and plan for buying house, make major move etc.

8.0) What is rational of EB3-India Visa allocation only approximately 100 a month? We feel that before EB3-I become unavailable it should get 140*7%*28.6% = 2802/12 VISA’s every month. EB3-I VISA reductions from Inventory reports before their Priority Date is as follows,
a) Between Inventory Published 03/12/10 & 01/30/10 = 100
b) Between Inventory Published between 01/30/10 & 04/08/10 = 100
Rationale: This will help EB3 applicants to estimate date of approval to plan their future for house Purchase or major move etc.

9.0) How do you propose to reconcile the pending data reported by DOS and USCIS.
We are Comparing data from two sources USCIS published pending inventory and DOS published monthly determination, And we have Found data Differences for following categories,
USCIS Pending for EB3-China as on March 08, 2010 === 5,575
DOS Pending for EB3-China as on March 01, 2010 === 8,900
Rationale: Closing gap in case of data error.
References:
i. EmploymentDemandUsedForCutOffDates.pdf - http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/EmploymentDemandUsedForCutOffDates.pdf
ii. Operation of the Numerical Control Process - http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/Immigrant%20Visa%20Control%20System_operation%20of .pdf

Dude i must say, it must have taken a huge effort to come up with all this. But guess what, it wont make a dent. There are way too many Indians, Chinese and Mexicans in line and too few GC's to give out.

bank_king2003

04-09-2010, 04:29 PM

Dude i must say, it must have taken a huge effort to come up with all this. But guess what, it wont make a dent. There are way too many Indians, Chinese and Mexicans in line and too few GC's to give out.

You are right that it wont make any dent not becasue of the numbers of indians, chinease or mexicans but because we failed to identify the problem at a basic level.

if we have a clear answer and hold on following questions i think then only we can make USCIS/DOS to behave.

1) Is USCIS or DOS accountable for anything? if they do anything wrong can we do anything?

2) If USCIS post incorrect and bogus numbers of demand do we have a right or anything to challenge them?

3) If USCIS says that they are doing quarterly spillover and don't do that can we do anything legally?

ronhira

04-09-2010, 05:02 PM

You are right that it wont make any dent not becasue of the numbers of indians, chinease or mexicans but because we failed to identify the problem at a basic level.

if we have a clear answer and hold on following questions i think then only we can make USCIS/DOS to behave.

1) Is USCIS or DOS accountable for anything? if they do anything wrong can we do anything?

2) If USCIS post incorrect and bogus numbers of demand do we have a right or anything to challenge them?

3) If USCIS says that they are doing quarterly spillover and don't do that can we do anything legally?

there we go again..... becoz visa bulletin dates did no move.... all of a sudden it means uscis/dos is not doing their job?..... get a grip of u'r self.....

my date if 7th feb-05 & its just days away for over an year.... but i know that blaming uscis/dos won't do a shit for anyone..... becoz that's not where the problem is..... now don't throw bullshit at me.... saying uscis is not efficient blah blah blah..... if uscis is allocating 140K gc per year, that's good enough...... becoz its a wrong goal to setup 100% efficiency with uscis..... we all don't work with our employer 100% becoz we spend time scanning the web..... y do we expect uscis to work 100%....... for me uscis is doing their job if they allocate 140k gc per year...... period..... now stop this non-sense of blaming uscis/dos becoz that sets a wrong target..... the blame/fault for vb and backlog lies with the congress..... the least we can do is identify the source of the problem...... we do people here keep beating down on uscis & dos...... y r we do dumb.....

and all these questions is totally a waste of time...... in the end lets say u get 100% efficiency, what will it get u..... 7 more green cards for a backlog of 1 million..... how stupid is it to get totally blinded by this misguided meaningless talk for 7 visas for a million headless chickens.....

lets continue talking about uscis/dos..... who is next...:mad:

bank_king2003

04-09-2010, 05:08 PM

there we go again..... becoz visa bulletin dates did no move.... all of a sudden it means uscis/dos is not doing their job?..... get a grip of u'r self.....

my date if 7th feb-05 & its just days away for over an year.... but i know that blaming uscis/dos won't do a shit for anyone..... becoz that's not where the problem is..... now don't throw bullshit at me.... saying uscis is not efficient blah blah blah..... if uscis is allocating 140K gc per year, that's good enough...... becoz its a wrong goal to setup 100% efficiency with uscis..... we all don't work with our employer 100% becoz we spend time scanning the web..... y do we expect uscis to work 100%....... for me uscis is doing their job if they allocate 140k gc per year...... period..... now stop this non-sense of blaming uscis/dos becoz that sets a wrong target..... the blame/fault for vb and backlog lies with the congress..... the least we can do is identify the source of the problem...... we do people here keep beating down on uscis & dos...... y r we do dumb.....

and all these questions is totally a waste of time...... in the end lets say u get 100% efficiency, what will it get u..... 7 more green cards for a backlog of 1 million..... how stupid is it to get totally blinded by this misguided meaningless talk for 7 visas for a million headless chickens.....

lets continue talking about uscis/dos..... who is next...:mad:

Gud u let out ur frustration. U r gud for that only as i see u comparing our effeciency with USCIS. i know ur gray matter now !!!

northstar

04-09-2010, 05:10 PM

there we go again..... becoz visa bulletin dates did no move.... all of a sudden it means uscis/dos is not doing their job?..... get a grip of u'r self.....

my date if 7th feb-05 & its just days away for over an year.... but i know that blaming uscis/dos won't do a shit for anyone..... becoz that's not where the problem is..... now don't throw bullshit at me.... saying uscis is not efficient blah blah blah..... if uscis is allocating 140K gc per year, that's good enough...... becoz its a wrong goal to setup 100% efficiency with uscis..... we all don't work with our employer 100% becoz we spend time scanning the web..... y do we expect uscis to work 100%....... for me uscis is doing their job if they allocate 140k gc per year...... period..... now stop this non-sense of blaming uscis/dos becoz that sets a wrong target..... the blame/fault for vb and backlog lies with the congress..... the least we can do is identify the source of the problem...... we do people here keep beating down on uscis & dos...... y r we do dumb.....

and all these questions is totally a waste of time...... in the end lets say u get 100% efficiency, what will it get u..... 7 more green cards for a backlog of 1 million..... how stupid is it to get totally blinded by this misguided meaningless talk for 7 visas for a million headless chickens.....

lets continue talking about uscis/dos..... who is next...:mad:

You don't like members blaming CIS, could have said in one line

ronhira

04-09-2010, 05:29 PM

You don't like members blaming CIS, could have said in one line

i don't..... becoz i' not in sarah palin brigade of mindless freaks who have to find someone to blame others for the sake of it..... we live in a complicated world..... just becoz we applied with uscis..... & just becoz they've to approve applications..... it doesn't mean
backlogs & delays is uscis fault..... the least amongst us can easily figure out that the problem is with the congress, not with cis.....

y the hell do u blame cis...... r they not allocating 140K per year..... what more do u want from them....... oh well...... for the sarah palin brigade on this forum i'm now an outcast.....

hpandey

04-09-2010, 05:41 PM

On the same note, Kumarc123, it is hard to see them working with 2001 EB3-India category for more than 5 years. 245(i) or not...still 5 years...how about that.

Anyway, my point is let us leave predictions. USCIS gave their predictions way back in their Jan 2010 bulletin. Maybe we all should stick with what dates they gave us than we trying to predict.

Now another venting, more calculations, more uproar everything will continue for 1 more week from our members...:rolleyes:

I completely agree with you . For five years EB3 is stuck in 2001 that means people who came here 10 years back are still waiting. Something needs to be done by someone somewhere but I guess no one has any idea who can ( except the congress ) .

All of my friends about 10-15 of them who came with me in 2000-2001 timeframe got their GC's and their citizenships in EB3 ( none in EB2 ) and I am still hanging .

I wonder what was that which made their application go by light speed and my application go into a blackhole :)

waitingmygc

04-09-2010, 06:00 PM

In this visa bulletin there is reasonable movement in family category. So, its not fair to conclude USCIS is not working.

kondur_007

04-09-2010, 06:22 PM

This is an "Ouch..." visa bulletin.

Dont want to be passimistic or discourage anyone; I have always been optimistic and will remain so...

However, this suggests that there will not be any fall down (previously called spillover) from EB4 and may not even be much from EB5 (Last year this was the major factor that gave 10k additional numbers to EB2 India). Lookes like people are finding alternate ways (who can) by these routes.

EB1 used up all its numbers last year and we dont know what will happen this year.

EB2 ROW usage looks low, but then again no movement in EB2 India...

Patience and persistence....

Good Luck to all of us.

sunny1000

04-09-2010, 06:31 PM

I completely agree with you . For five years EB3 is stuck in 2001 that means people who came here 10 years back are still waiting. Something needs to be done by someone somewhere but I guess no one has any idea who can ( except the congress ) .

All of my friends about 10-15 of them who came with me in 2000-2001 timeframe got their GC's and their citizenships in EB3 ( none in EB2 ) and I am still hanging .

I wonder what was that which made their application go by light speed and my application go into a blackhole :)

Probably, their labor got approved before the FY2006 when the retrogression started. All the categories were current until then due to the recapture done by AC21. I am stuck in this mess because my labor took 5 years to get approved.

immi_seeker

04-09-2010, 06:32 PM

Rb_newsletter

04-09-2010, 06:39 PM

i don't..... becoz i' not in sarah palin brigade of mindless freaks who have to find someone to blame others for the sake of it..... we live in a complicated world..... just becoz we applied with uscis..... & just becoz they've to approve applications..... it doesn't mean
backlogs & delays is uscis fault..... the least amongst us can easily figure out that the problem is with the congress, not with cis.....

y the hell do u blame cis...... r they not allocating 140K per year..... what more do u want from them....... oh well...... for the sarah palin brigade on this forum i'm now an outcast.....

- the problem is with the congress, not with cis
Congress did not ask USCIS/DOS to subtract dependent visa numbers from 140K. If USCIS/DOS excludes dependent numbers from 140k, congress cannot question that because law doesn't mandate to include the dependent numbers in 140K.

-y the hell do u blame cis...... r they not allocating 140K per year
If USCIS/DOS doesn't agree to change their administration policy to exclude dependent visas from 140K after seeing our backlog, then who else do we have to blame.
Yes they are allocating 140K per year. But to who? In my view to the same applicant; one for primary applicant, another for his spouse, another for his kid, ....

Most of us here are 'keyboard ninjas'. Only very few contribute in actions and that contribution is hidden under donor forums. Without awareness of the good things happening, these keyboard-ninjas are not going to contribute in actions.

We all understand that blaming is not going to help anyone. But what else to do.

bmoni

04-09-2010, 06:43 PM

Thanks Papu !!!! thats great....

Visa Bulletin for May 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4805.html)

dentist1

04-09-2010, 06:47 PM

Thanks Papu !!!! thats great....

His name is Pappu and not Papu also what is so great about this bulletin buddy.It sucks bigtime.

ronhira

04-09-2010, 07:02 PM

- the problem is with the congress, not with cis
Congress did not ask USCIS/DOS to subtract dependent visa numbers from 140K. If USCIS/DOS excludes dependent numbers from 140k, congress cannot question that because law doesn't mandate to include the dependent numbers in 140K.

-y the hell do u blame cis...... r they not allocating 140K per year
If USCIS/DOS doesn't agree to change their administration policy to exclude dependent visas from 140K after seeing our backlog, then who else do we have to blame.
Yes they are allocating 140K per year. But to who? In my view to the same applicant; one for primary applicant, another for his spouse, another for his kid, ....

Most of us here are 'keyboard ninjas'. Only very few contribute in actions and that contribution is hidden under donor forums. Without awareness of the good things happening, these keyboard-ninjas are not going to contribute in actions.

We all understand that blaming is not going to help anyone. But what else to do.

u'r saying that all these years uscis & dos was misinterpreting the law for counting dependents in the 140K count..... well, what is the army of 10,000 impotent immigration lawyers doing for last 15 years..... i know they r all dumb & sleazy..... but if that were the case someone in that useless army of 10,000 would have cared to file a lawsuit or someone in congress would have questioned uscis/dos..... the fact that no one questioned or filed for a suit just proves that uscis is interpreting the law correctly..... as much as i would like...... i am actually not convinced that its uscis fault for counting depends.... again here its the fault of the congress for framing the law like the way it is....

there are sleazy immigration lawyers who throw out this bullshit material hoping that some of it will stick, & guys like will think they r the gods..... in that sense its our fault to play right into the hands of sleazy immigration lawyers.... here r some of the creepiest of things thrown by some of these scam artist lawyers -

- fix backlog without immigration bill
- vb dates all current in 2 months
- spillover crap (this one is my favorite)

all that i'm trying to say is that we can do lot of things.... and beating down on uscis/dos is the last thing we all want to do....... becoz otherwise we waste the energy from our frustration/anger @ the wrong target......

rb_248

04-09-2010, 07:26 PM

No change. Wohi purani kahaani. Old wine in new bottle.

Old wine tastes good. Does this VB tastes good to you?

pappu

04-09-2010, 08:43 PM

Old wine tastes good. Does this VB tastes good to you?
:)

transpass

04-09-2010, 10:20 PM

chanduv23

04-09-2010, 10:40 PM

We are not saying that they are not doing their job well. We just want better visibility to plan our future. I want to buy Hose which has substancial investment, can I buy during this uncertainity, may be.

Buying a hose is not substantial investment. It may cost $20 to $50 based on the length you need

designflaw

04-09-2010, 10:59 PM

ROW moved 2 months, I will take it. If it keeps moving 2 months at a time, then my turn would come up in 3 years. Highly unlikely cause ROW PD per USCIS is expected to be in 2005/2006 by end of year. I think my PR for ROW would be pretty much catching up.

ivgclive

04-10-2010, 12:04 AM

Old wine tastes good. Does this VB tastes good to you?

Yes.

Why not.

VB is the only item that keeps many to survive for the next 30 days.

Green card applicants started losing hope and dying slowly for 15 days. Then they become like a phenix birds for next 15 days, hoping that something will be there in next VB.

This cycle will go for next several generations....

We should be proud that we are going to be in history.

In 2050 school kids in US will study about "how a several thousands stuipds spent their whole lives, waited for something that never happened"

nitinboston

04-10-2010, 01:02 AM

i have been on this forum for some time now, something i still am trying to understand is, IS GC A RIGHT OR A PRIVILEGE? if its a right i am all for fighting for it but if its a privilege bestowed by this nation on immigrants why don't we just kneel and pray instead of crying foul.

eb3_nepa

04-10-2010, 08:07 AM

Instead of letting members open 4 different threads, it is best that IV core itself opens the thread in RED so that it catches people's eyes and they post their comments in one spot rather than 4. AND it helps highlight the fact the bulletin is actually out.

inskrish

04-10-2010, 09:36 AM

Buying a hose is not substantial investment. It may cost $20 to $50 based on the length you need

:)

gc28262

04-10-2010, 10:04 AM

The biggest surprise is EB3 Mexico. It just turned to U. How is that possible??
Can this happen to EB3-I India as well??

In April bulletin EB3 Mexico was at 01-JUL-02. Mexico used up all its quota and turned U. That means there were lot of applicants whose PD was before 01-JUL-02.

As for India EB3, same logic applies. Right now India EB3 is at 01-OCT-01. If there are enough people with PD before 01-OCT-01 to use up the quota, it can turn U in the next bulletin. Otherwise it could inch couple of weeks forward.

kondur_007

04-10-2010, 10:28 AM

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 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/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.

imneedy

04-10-2010, 10:28 AM

buying a hose is not substantial investment. It may cost $20 to $50 based on the length you need

lol :d

ronhira

04-10-2010, 10:40 AM

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....

gc28262

04-10-2010, 11:14 AM

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.

transpass

04-10-2010, 12:07 PM

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 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/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%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf

Thanks,

vbkris77

04-10-2010, 12:28 PM

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.

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 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/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.

snram4

04-10-2010, 03:34 PM

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.

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?

kondur_007

04-10-2010, 03:44 PM

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%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%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.

gc28262

04-10-2010, 10:24 PM

and what is your point?
EB3-I won't retrogress back to 2001 again. It will keep moving forward at slow but steady pace.

rodnyb

04-11-2010, 01:05 AM

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...

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.

gc28262

04-11-2010, 02:07 PM

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).

ronhira

04-11-2010, 06:05 PM

Good point. I appreciate your hard work.

This may be helpful
245(i), Adjustment of Status Permanent Residence, Life Act | V Visa, K Visa (http://www.callyourlawyers.com/245%28i%29revival.html)

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 petitioner’s
naturalization, through the parents’ 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....

gc28262

04-11-2010, 09:03 PM

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 ?