View Single Post
  #156 (permalink)  
Old 09-05-2009, 02:28 AM
amsgc amsgc is offline
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Dec-05
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
06/01/2006
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
08/08/2007
Compare
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 631
amsgc has a brilliant future amsgc has a brilliant future amsgc has a brilliant future amsgc has a brilliant future amsgc has a brilliant future amsgc has a brilliant future amsgc has a brilliant future amsgc has a brilliant future amsgc has a brilliant future amsgc has a brilliant future amsgc has a brilliant future
Default

You are incorrect to assume that the vertical spill-over has hurt EB3-I.

The vertical spillover rule was EB2ROW-spillver->EB3ROW-spillover->EB2-I/C-spillover->EB3-I/C

Now the interpretation is EB2ROW-spillover->EB2-I/C-spillover->EB3ROW.
If anything, the change in spill over rule has hurt EB3ROW.

The new interpretation has not affected EB3-I at all.

The only reason EB3-I used to get a large chunk of visas (2007 and before) is because USCIS would pre-adjudicate cases in the order in which they would receive them, without regard for availability of visa numbers. Since traditionally there are a large number of applicants for EB3-I, a large number of those apps. would be pre-adjudicated, and hence approved with spill over.

Anyway, the above is how the USCIS operated a few years ago. A lot seems to have changed since then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trueguy View Post
Thanks for the positive note. But based on this poll and assuming Ron's info (44000 pending EB3-I) correct, there are about 7000 people before me. It means I will get approval in 2012 (assuming 2800 per year) unless there is a law change.

This Vertical Spillover change in rule has put EB3-I in complete garbage. DOS didn't do justice for us who are also human being just like EB2
__________________
Be Active and Help Yourself!
Join the GA State Chapter!

$$$ Contributions:
$560 in one time contributions
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.