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

Go Back   Immigration Voice > Immigration Voice Issues and Congressional updates > All other Green Card Issues
Click to log in with Facebook
All other Green Card Issues I-140/I-485, Family Based Green Card

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #4801 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2012, 05:10 PM
Senior Member/Moderator
Priority Date
:
Jul-07
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
10/15/2007
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
11/01/2011
Compare
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,512
TeddyKoochu has a reputation beyond repute TeddyKoochu has a reputation beyond repute TeddyKoochu has a reputation beyond repute TeddyKoochu has a reputation beyond repute TeddyKoochu has a reputation beyond repute TeddyKoochu has a reputation beyond repute TeddyKoochu has a reputation beyond repute TeddyKoochu has a reputation beyond repute TeddyKoochu has a reputation beyond repute TeddyKoochu has a reputation beyond repute TeddyKoochu has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suva View Post
Thanks Teddy for your elaborate response.

But I want to highlight this INA Act. 202. This act was done prior to AC21 and at that point spillover visa rule was non existent. In year 2000 this "Immigration and Nationality Act" was amended with AC21 and spillover visas was introduced. As per the link below this 7% cap is not applicable to spillover visas.

Analysis of S. 2045, American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act

So spillover visas can be given on FIFO basis. My point is USCIS is interpreting it wrongly and applying 7% quota to spillover visas whereas AC21 doesn't specify this.

My understanding might be wrong. But if I am correct then we need to fight for this with USCIS.

Thanks
Refer to the Aug 2010 VB. INA 202 was actually amended by the AC21 act it still very much there.
Visa Bulletin for August 2010
INA Section 202(a)(5)(A), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21), provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the otherwise unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. This provision helps to assure that all available Employment preference numbers may be used. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)(A) has occasionally allowed oversubscribed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large quantities of Employment First and Second preference numbers that would have otherwise gone unused.
There are 3 key terms here.
a) Qualified Applicant (Subject to 7%, this is the key difference between the link that you posted and the official INA 202).
b) Employment preference category This is the reason why they have to have the qualified applicant test at the category level. This is what changed in 2007.
c) Calendar quarter this is when the spillover is to be supposedly applied.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


1 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
  #4802 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2012, 05:20 PM
Member
Priority Date
:
N/A
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 92
padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TeddyKoochu View Post
Refer to the Aug 2010 VB. INA 202 was actually amended by the AC21 act it still very much there.
Visa Bulletin for August 2010
INA Section 202(a)(5)(A), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21), provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the otherwise unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. This provision helps to assure that all available Employment preference numbers may be used. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)(A) has occasionally allowed oversubscribed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large quantities of Employment First and Second preference numbers that would have otherwise gone unused.
.
/*otherwise unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits*/

this makes me understand that the unused visas are given irrespective of country quota . I mean FIFO with in the category .
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #4803 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2012, 05:29 PM
Senior Member/Moderator
Priority Date
:
Jul-07
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
10/15/2007
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
11/01/2011
Compare
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,512
TeddyKoochu has a reputation beyond repute TeddyKoochu has a reputation beyond repute TeddyKoochu has a reputation beyond repute TeddyKoochu has a reputation beyond repute TeddyKoochu has a reputation beyond repute TeddyKoochu has a reputation beyond repute TeddyKoochu has a reputation beyond repute TeddyKoochu has a reputation beyond repute TeddyKoochu has a reputation beyond repute TeddyKoochu has a reputation beyond repute TeddyKoochu has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by padmaforopt View Post
/*otherwise unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits*/

this makes me understand that the unused visas are given irrespective of country quota . I mean FIFO with in the category .
In EB2 currently ROW is current and I & C are retrogressed. The current resting point of the numbers is EB2 so what it means here is that the 7% limited countries i.e ROW are fine and India and China can share these numbers without regard to the 7% rule to any extent. However the moment the numbers if they would drop to EB3 there the situation is entirely different as EB3 ROW is not current and therefore numbers would never be unused they would first go to satiate every country till 7%.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


1 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
  #4804 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2012, 05:49 PM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Dec-04
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
06/01/2007
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
06/30/2007
Compare
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 494
Suva has a reputation beyond repute Suva has a reputation beyond repute Suva has a reputation beyond repute Suva has a reputation beyond repute Suva has a reputation beyond repute Suva has a reputation beyond repute Suva has a reputation beyond repute Suva has a reputation beyond repute Suva has a reputation beyond repute Suva has a reputation beyond repute Suva has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Teddy, prior to AC21 these spillover visas were getting wasted year after year. If your logic "numbers would never be unused they would first go to satiate every country till 7%" is true then the spillover visas would have been used by USCIS prior to AC21 (year 2000) as many countries in EB3-ROW could not reach 7% limit after 40000 visas are used for each category in EB1/EB2/Eb3. In this respect AC21 allowed USCIS to use these spillover visas to be used to over subscribed countries irrespective of 7% limit. Only rule to follow is EB1-EB2-EB3. I have checked your visa bulletin August 2010 link and did not find any place to contradict this theory. Overall my point is that USCIS is interpreting it wrongly and that wrong interpretation might get reflected in their visa bulletin.

Thanks


Quote:
Originally Posted by TeddyKoochu View Post
In EB2 currently ROW is current and I & C are retrogressed. The current resting point of the numbers is EB2 so what it means here is that the 7% limited countries i.e ROW are fine and India and China can share these numbers without regard to the 7% rule to any extent. However the moment the numbers if they would drop to EB3 there the situation is entirely different as EB3 ROW is not current and therefore numbers would never be unused they would first go to satiate every country till 7%.
__________________
Attended DC advocacy in 2010
Contributed over $200
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
  #4805 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2012, 05:59 PM
Senior Member/Moderator
Priority Date
:
Jul-07
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
10/15/2007
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
11/01/2011
Compare
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,512
TeddyKoochu has a reputation beyond repute TeddyKoochu has a reputation beyond repute TeddyKoochu has a reputation beyond repute TeddyKoochu has a reputation beyond repute TeddyKoochu has a reputation beyond repute TeddyKoochu has a reputation beyond repute TeddyKoochu has a reputation beyond repute TeddyKoochu has a reputation beyond repute TeddyKoochu has a reputation beyond repute TeddyKoochu has a reputation beyond repute TeddyKoochu has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suva View Post
Teddy, prior to AC21 these spillover visas were getting wasted year after year. If your logic "numbers would never be unused they would first go to satiate every country till 7%" is true then the spillover visas would have been used by USCIS prior to AC21 (year 2000) as many countries in EB3-ROW could not reach 7% limit after 40000 visas are used for each category in EB1/EB2/Eb3. In this respect AC21 allowed USCIS to use these spillover visas to be used to over subscribed countries irrespective of 7% limit. Only rule to follow is EB1-EB2-EB3. I have checked your visa bulletin August 2010 link and did not find any place to contradict this theory. Overall my point is that USCIS is interpreting it wrongly and that wrong interpretation might get reflected in their visa bulletin.

Thanks
Pre 2007 there was a dearth of all kinds of applicants I/C, ROW etc so even if there was a rule / law it was non use as there was enough for everyone so anyone whose 485 was in there had a good chance of approval. Post 2007 when preadjudication started this is when the rules really started to matter. I believe the real basis of any interpretaion should still be the INA 202 document. You might like to google search for postsings by gcperm & sangiano these people have worked extensively on the interpretation. The inetrpretaion has always been disputed though.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


0 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
  #4806 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2012, 06:07 PM
Member
Priority Date
:
Jan-03
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
12/01/2005
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
05/01/2007
Compare
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 27
nitlsu has much to be proud of nitlsu has much to be proud of nitlsu has much to be proud of nitlsu has much to be proud of nitlsu has much to be proud of nitlsu has much to be proud of nitlsu has much to be proud of nitlsu has much to be proud of
Default EB3->EB2 port

Teddy,

I am seriously considering porting to EB2 but I am just not sure if it's worth the expense, time and more importantly the red tape/paperwork.

My PD is Jan 10 2003 for EB3-I. What ballpark estimate do you have for approvals for this priority date? Again thank you for all the effort and persistence on this thread.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
  #4807 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2012, 06:13 PM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Dec-04
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
06/01/2007
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
06/30/2007
Compare
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 494
Suva has a reputation beyond repute Suva has a reputation beyond repute Suva has a reputation beyond repute Suva has a reputation beyond repute Suva has a reputation beyond repute Suva has a reputation beyond repute Suva has a reputation beyond repute Suva has a reputation beyond repute Suva has a reputation beyond repute Suva has a reputation beyond repute Suva has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Pre 2000 there was backlog for EB3-India & EB3-China though it was not like what we have today. In addition to spillover visas AC21 in 2000 allowed another 130,000 lost visas from 1990 to 2000 to be used to clear the backlog and 7% limit was also excluded from these lost visas. This worked from 2000 to 2004 and there was no backlog during this period. After this 130,000 visas got exhausted this current backlog got started building up over the years.

Yes I would check postings by gcperm & sangiano.

Thanks

Quote:
Originally Posted by TeddyKoochu View Post
Pre 2007 there was a dearth of all kinds of applicants I/C, ROW etc so even if there was a rule / law it was non use as there was enough for everyone so anyone whose 485 was in there had a good chance of approval. Post 2007 when preadjudication started this is when the rules really started to matter. I believe the real basis of any interpretaion should still be the INA 202 document. You might like to google search for postsings by gcperm & sangiano these people have worked extensively on the interpretation. The inetrpretaion has always been disputed though.
__________________
Attended DC advocacy in 2010
Contributed over $200
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
  #4808 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2012, 07:01 PM
Member
Priority Date
:
N/A
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 92
padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute
Default Highly Populated countries should wait like beggars for mercy

Quote:
Originally Posted by TeddyKoochu View Post
In EB2 currently ROW is current and I & C are retrogressed. The current resting point of the numbers is EB2 so what it means here is that the 7% limited countries i.e ROW are fine and India and China can share these numbers without regard to the 7% rule to any extent. However the moment the numbers if they would drop to EB3 there the situation is entirely different as EB3 ROW is not current and therefore numbers would never be unused they would first go to satiate every country till 7%.
Thanks Teddy for clearing the doubts with patience .

Still, I couldn't believe it that "The higly populated countries like china and India should wait with their 7%(meaningless) quota till everyone else in the queue gets cleared" .

This indicates that the oversubscribed countries should apply for GC , only when no one in the world is applying for GC ,Because even the small countries like srilanka , nepal, taiwan has 7% & everyone in the queue , even the person who applied today should get visa before India and China gets more than 7% visa.

Isn't that ridiculous?
why no administrative fix on this?
'Diversity achieved' is so important than a 'Skilled person waiting in the line & paying taxes to USA without any benefits'.

Diversity would be achieved based on the region in a bigger scope not based on the country . Like South Asia, North Asia , Europe .

Whats the diversity they found between an Chinese and Taiwan?

B/w an Indian and srilankan?

B/w Indian and Bangaldesh..... and lot of examples.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #4809 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2012, 07:23 PM
Member
Priority Date
:
N/A
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 92
padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute
Default India should be awarded 28 *7% = 196%

We should propose to the US Govt that . Each state in India has diversity ,So India can be awarded 196% quota to achieve diversity.

I am sorry , I am really feeling very sad after knowing the reality about spillover visas.

I am not a Eb3 Immigrant . But its not about the category, Its about the Ebvisas and the 7%(Dead End) quota .
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #4810 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2012, 07:36 PM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Processing Stage
:
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
floridasun has a reputation beyond repute floridasun has a reputation beyond repute floridasun has a reputation beyond repute floridasun has a reputation beyond repute floridasun has a reputation beyond repute floridasun has a reputation beyond repute floridasun has a reputation beyond repute floridasun has a reputation beyond repute floridasun has a reputation beyond repute floridasun has a reputation beyond repute floridasun has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by padmaforopt View Post
Thanks Teddy for clearing the doubts with patience .

Still, I couldn't believe it that "The higly populated countries like china and India should wait with their 7%(meaningless) quota till everyone else in the queue gets cleared" .

This indicates that the oversubscribed countries should apply for GC , only when no one in the world is applying for GC ,Because even the small countries like srilanka , nepal, taiwan has 7% & everyone in the queue , even the person who applied today should get visa before India and China gets more than 7% visa.

Isn't that ridiculous?
why no administrative fix on this?
'Diversity achieved' is so important than a 'Skilled person waiting in the line & paying taxes to USA without any benefits'.

Diversity would be achieved based on the region in a bigger scope not based on the country . Like South Asia, North Asia , Europe .

Whats the diversity they found between an Chinese and Taiwan?

B/w an Indian and srilankan?

B/w Indian and Bangaldesh..... and lot of examples.
In plain and simple terms, this is 21st century discrimination implemented using 21st century instruments.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #4811 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2012, 07:50 PM
Junior Member
Priority Date
:
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Processing Stage
:
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 21
immigrant0809 has a reputation beyond repute immigrant0809 has a reputation beyond repute immigrant0809 has a reputation beyond repute immigrant0809 has a reputation beyond repute immigrant0809 has a reputation beyond repute immigrant0809 has a reputation beyond repute immigrant0809 has a reputation beyond repute immigrant0809 has a reputation beyond repute immigrant0809 has a reputation beyond repute immigrant0809 has a reputation beyond repute immigrant0809 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Look at what happens to spare visas that fall down to EB3 in a wider sense and you can see it is fair under the current laws.

The overriding element of INA 202 is that no Country may exceed 7%. Everything else is an exception to that.

Quote:
(2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. - Subject to 1a/ paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed 7 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 2 percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.
About 175 Countries receive visas in EB3. 175 * 7% = 1,225% clearly can't be satisfied from the initial 100% available.

The number of visas the 170 Countries making up ROW can receive are constrained by the 40,040 allocation to EB3 as a whole.

If China, India, Mexico and Philippines all reach the 7% limit, then those 170 Countries have to share 72% of the visas.

That is an average of less than 0.5% per Country.

If additional visas become available, it can be considered fair to allow those Countries to progress to their own 7% limitation.

Apart from South Korea, no ROW Country received more than 1,571 visas in EB3 in FY2010 (Pakistan).

Only 5 ROW Countries received more than 1,000 visas (Pakistan, Ecuador, Brazil, Colombia, Canada).

Only 10 ROW Countries received more than 500 visas (above plus Poland, El Salvador, Peru, Guatemala, Great Britain).

Iran, in 18th place (303) received less than 10% the numbers that India (3,036) did in FY2010.

Everybody in EB3 is a loser in the system for various reasons. Let's not lose sight of that fact.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
  #4812 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2012, 08:18 PM
Junior Member
Priority Date
:
Nov-07
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 21
richguy has a reputation beyond repute richguy has a reputation beyond repute richguy has a reputation beyond repute richguy has a reputation beyond repute richguy has a reputation beyond repute richguy has a reputation beyond repute richguy has a reputation beyond repute richguy has a reputation beyond repute richguy has a reputation beyond repute richguy has a reputation beyond repute richguy has a reputation beyond repute
Default

To me, All this date movements to get enough demand etc is like playing some sort of game having some stupid rules.

USCIS don't know how many spillover visas will be available for each year till the end of the year..
USCIS don't know how many people are eligible/would apply I-485 for a given priority date...

So they move the slider (Priority dates) back and forth to make sure they don't waste any visas..
It is ok for them to get too many I-485 applications though they can't allocate GC for each application in that fiscal year.. Why can't they let us file I-485 as soon as I-140 is approved or file I-485 along with I-140 and treat the "priority date" as real priority date...

I guess they really don't care how this affects the people as they were never at the receiving end of this..

Anyway, Our ray of hope for now is HR 3012...
__________________
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Contributed $50 for 2011 Advocacy days

Nov 2006 - EB2 PERM Approved
Aug 2007 - Changed the employer due to previous employer issues
Nov 2007 - EB3 PERM Approved
Feb 2009 - EB3 I-140 Approved
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #4813 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2012, 08:24 PM
Junior Member
Priority Date
:
Nov-07
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 21
richguy has a reputation beyond repute richguy has a reputation beyond repute richguy has a reputation beyond repute richguy has a reputation beyond repute richguy has a reputation beyond repute richguy has a reputation beyond repute richguy has a reputation beyond repute richguy has a reputation beyond repute richguy has a reputation beyond repute richguy has a reputation beyond repute richguy has a reputation beyond repute
Default

If EB2 and EB3 are so different that spill over is fully applied to EB2 till it becomes current and the spill over to EB3, why the initial allocation is same for all 3 categories (40K each for EB1, EB2 and EB3). Aren't they treating all the categories as same for initial allocation?
__________________
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Contributed $50 for 2011 Advocacy days

Nov 2006 - EB2 PERM Approved
Aug 2007 - Changed the employer due to previous employer issues
Nov 2007 - EB3 PERM Approved
Feb 2009 - EB3 I-140 Approved
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
  #4814 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2012, 08:33 PM
Member
Priority Date
:
N/A
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 26
haramihokie has a reputation beyond repute haramihokie has a reputation beyond repute haramihokie has a reputation beyond repute haramihokie has a reputation beyond repute haramihokie has a reputation beyond repute haramihokie has a reputation beyond repute haramihokie has a reputation beyond repute haramihokie has a reputation beyond repute haramihokie has a reputation beyond repute haramihokie has a reputation beyond repute haramihokie has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by immigrant0809 View Post
Look at what happens to spare visas that fall down to EB3 in a wider sense and you can see it is fair under the current laws.

The overriding element of INA 202 is that no Country may exceed 7%. Everything else is an exception to that.



About 175 Countries receive visas in EB3. 175 * 7% = 1,225% clearly can't be satisfied from the initial 100% available.

The number of visas the 170 Countries making up ROW can receive are constrained by the 40,040 allocation to EB3 as a whole.

If China, India, Mexico and Philippines all reach the 7% limit, then those 170 Countries have to share 72% of the visas.

That is an average of less than 0.5% per Country.

If additional visas become available, it can be considered fair to allow those Countries to progress to their own 7% limitation.

Apart from South Korea, no ROW Country received more than 1,571 visas in EB3 in FY2010 (Pakistan).

Only 5 ROW Countries received more than 1,000 visas (Pakistan, Ecuador, Brazil, Colombia, Canada).

Only 10 ROW Countries received more than 500 visas (above plus Poland, El Salvador, Peru, Guatemala, Great Britain).

Iran, in 18th place (303) received less than 10% the numbers that India (3,036) did in FY2010.

Everybody in EB3 is a loser in the system for various reasons. Let's not lose sight of that fact.
Great points - I think their actual intention was noble (have equal representation) but as usual, they created a stupid allocation system and it is a complete mess. Your analysis clearly explains the need for HR3012 for everyone
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #4815 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2012, 08:39 PM
Member
Priority Date
:
N/A
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 92
padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute padmaforopt has a reputation beyond repute
Default Which country you are from( from the 170) ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by immigrant0809 View Post
Look at what happens to spare visas that fall down to EB3 in a wider sense and you can see it is fair under the current laws.

The overriding element of INA 202 is that no Country may exceed 7%. Everything else is an exception to that.



About 175 Countries receive visas in EB3. 175 * 7% = 1,225% clearly can't be satisfied from the initial 100% available.

The number of visas the 170 Countries making up ROW can receive are constrained by the 40,040 allocation to EB3 as a whole.

If China, India, Mexico and Philippines all reach the 7% limit, then those 170 Countries have to share 72% of the visas.

That is an average of less than 0.5% per Country.

If additional visas become available, it can be considered fair to allow those Countries to progress to their own 7% limitation.

Apart from South Korea, no ROW Country received more than 1,571 visas in EB3 in FY2010 (Pakistan).

Only 5 ROW Countries received more than 1,000 visas (Pakistan, Ecuador, Brazil, Colombia, Canada).

Only 10 ROW Countries received more than 500 visas (above plus Poland, El Salvador, Peru, Guatemala, Great Britain).

Iran, in 18th place (303) received less than 10% the numbers that India (3,036) did in FY2010.

Everybody in EB3 is a loser in the system for various reasons. Let's not lose sight of that fact.

So 1000 visas to pakistan and 2800 to India and china is looking fair to you .

So India and china should wait till 170 countries get '2800 visas/country/year.'

what is this 7% limit for India & Chinese ( which are highly populated & developing countries).

EB visas are for future JObs .
So you say a job offered to Indain (or) chinese should be available for decades, while jobs offered for 'other country residents (or) who has a spouse from other country' should be available for less than decade?
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c)ImmigrationVoice.org