Improvement caused by the Budget Rec. Bill, if approved.

M

marlon2006

Registered Users (C)
Let me know confirm:

If 90,000 EB visa number are recaptured and applied torwards the FY2006, any doubt that the EB3 worldwide would be set to "current" or at least advance to Oct 2002 ?

In the best case scenario, if the dependents are not longer counted towards the the visa number headcounts, I guess most likely the EB3 worldwide would become 'current' again and that should be a fun day to Indians and Chineses as well.

Your thoughts ?
 
marlon2006 said:
Let me know confirm:

If 90,000 EB visa number are recaptured and applied torwards the FY2006, any doubt that the EB3 worldwide would be set to "current" or at least advance to Oct 2002 ?

In the best case scenario, if the dependents are not longer counted towards the the visa number headcounts, I guess most likely the EB3 worldwide would become 'current' again and that should be a fun day to Indians and Chineses as well.

Your thoughts ?
Click to expand...

It is too early and too devastating (if things dont fall in place) to play the "guess" game. Lets wait it out!, At the minimum, filing of 485 without available priority date is a good feature of the bill.. This will allow for at least some mental balance (and/or stability, bargaining power) while the retrogressions takes its course.

Sc3
 
....To start with it will be a Fun day......
But, 485 approval take years....as USCIS will need to generate revenues thourgh AP, EAD etc.

Good thing is mentally we are set....but in reality it will take years and years.
Which is OK.....hopefully the bill gets passed and EB3 goes back to its current state.

I want to just get to the last stage and hang around for years and years without Cut off date nonsense...
 
Right, right but that part I already know, hence the conditional "if approved" statement. The question was what would be the probable impact of such hypothetical measure.

Sc3 said:
It is too early and too devastating (if things dont fall in place) to play the "guess" game. Lets wait it out!, At the minimum, filing of 485 without available priority date is a good feature of the bill.. This will allow for at least some mental balance (and/or stability, bargaining power) while the retrogressions takes its course.

Sc3
Click to expand...
 
Marlon,
If thousands of people (excluding 300,000 cases pending with DOL) start applying for EAD and AP, that is going to strain the already hopeless system. If what I am saying turns out to be true, it might take 2-3 years to get your EAD approval alone.

Pleae say that this won't be the case. I will be thankful to you forever....

Thanks,
Senthil
 
If the bill passes in the current wording all EBx will become current because it asks to count only the principle applicant against the visa numbers. So no visa numbers will be counted for the family members of the principal applicant.
That means 90K * 2 or 3 at least new visa numbers. Also the counting procedure for the ongoing visa numbers will also change.

But my own feeling is that it is very unlikely that it will pass with this wording.
 
Personally I doubt that part that exempts the family members from the visa number headcounts will pass. Too good to be true. The one that apparently could receive a broader support is the one shot 90,000 EB recaptured from previous years. Think about it, you can argue "well, let's help the EB greencard applicant folks and all we are doing is recapturing numbers that were not in use from previous years". Reasonable.

Now if you go and tell the American people, well, let's do 140,000.00 * 2.5, that will be harder. However, it is true that last year the visa number headcount was 250,000+... we'll see.


imqwer said:
If the bill passes in the current wording all EBx will become current because it asks to count only the principle applicant against the visa numbers. So no visa numbers will be counted for the family members of the principal applicant.
That means 90K * 2 or 3 at least new visa numbers. Also the counting procedure for the ongoing visa numbers will also change.

But my own feeling is that it is very unlikely that it will pass with this wording.
Click to expand...
 
I think we can change this.

AlienBhai, I have this cute blonde girl from Russia here looking for a decent man to get married to. Let me know if you are interested. :)

AlienBhai said:
nobody likes to pay for others baggage ... right :D
Click to expand...
 
logically, I have hard time to believe how they can exemp family from visa number. It would be two people share one h1b. I hope people know the system well can help me out here.
 
if they exempt family from eb visa numbers, which quota will family members be counted against? we are certainly missing the fine print here.
may be they are considering counting dependents in family category or may be they are trying to introduce a different GC type where the dependents are not allowed to work until naturalization....... perhaps this proposal is not well thought out.

nonogc said:
logically, I have hard time to believe how they can exemp family from visa number. It would be two people share one h1b. I hope people know the system well can help me out here.
Click to expand...
 
My Openion

My personal openion is they are trying throw lot of stones together, hoping one will hit Big B and his mens. With difficultly they might only recapture VISA what ever is available like they did in AC21.

Lets be hopefull this is not the case, BTB I have a pending 485 with PD 2005.
 
tusharvk said:
if they exempt family from eb visa numbers, which quota will family members be counted against? we are certainly missing the fine print here.
may be they are considering counting dependents in family category or may be they are trying to introduce a different GC type where the dependents are not allowed to work until naturalization....... perhaps this proposal is not well thought out.
Click to expand...

It does bring out some inconsistancies, what about people with GC, sponsoring their wife? They will be disadvantaged because they need to wait for a visa number while people already married have a easy going. This portion may be stuck down (or maybe will get a sunset so as to allieviate current backlogs)... maybe it is not well thought, but let us not bring the fine print to the forefront.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top