EB2 guys wake up - DOS/CIS not approved any EB2 from AC21 numbers

C

can_card

New Member
Hi guys,

Recently DOS released FY 2005 statistics. They issued 242,335 EB visas in FY 2005. This include 140,000 yearly limit and about 100,000 AC- 21 recaptured numbers.

From FY 2001, there were additional one-time 131,000 recaptured visas availble apart from 140,000 visas per year. Here is the Total number of EB visas approved from FY 2001

2001 - 179,195
2002 - 174, 968
2003 - 82,137
2004 - 155,330
2005 - 242,335

Therefore, the most of the AC21 numbers were approved in FY 2005 only. However, the most of the AC21 numbers came from EB1 and EB2 quota from FY 1999 and 2000.

However, here is the number of EB2 approvals since 2001. The annual limit for EB2 visas are 40,000 (28% of 140,000)

2001 - 42,620
2002 - 44,468
2003 - 15,459
2004 - 32,534
2005 - 43,412

Therefore, EB2 just used equal to or less the per year quota from FY 2001 to 2005. But there is no account for EB2 numbers in addtional 131,000 recaptured numbers. Also. DOS clearly told that it has consumed all the AC21 numbers. The total number of approvals from 2001 to 2005 confirms the elaspe of AC21 numbers.

Therefore, it is obivious that DOS has not approved any EB2 cases from AC21 recaptured numbers, and diverted those numbers to EB3 or ther class, while there is a huge demand for EB2 numbers. I feel DOS has violated the Act. This is big blow to EB2 waiters.

Any one has second thought on it?
 
can_card said:
Hi guys,

Recently DOS released FY 2005 statistics. They issued 242,335 EB visas in FY 2005. This include 140,000 yearly limit and about 100,000 AC- 21 recaptured numbers.

From FY 2001, there were additional one-time 131,000 recaptured visas availble apart from 140,000 visas per year. Here is the Total number of EB visas approved from FY 2001

2001 - 179,195
2002 - 174, 968
2003 - 82,137
2004 - 155,330
2005 - 242,335

Therefore, the most of the AC21 numbers were approved in FY 2005 only. However, the most of the AC21 numbers came from EB1 and EB2 quota from FY 1999 and 2000.

However, here is the number of EB2 approvals since 2001. The annual limit for EB2 visas are 40,000 (28% of 140,000)

2001 - 42,620
2002 - 44,468
2003 - 15,459
2004 - 32,534
2005 - 43,412

Therefore, EB2 just used equal to or less the per year quota from FY 2001 to 2005. But there is no account for EB2 numbers in addtional 131,000 recaptured numbers. Also. DOS clearly told that it has consumed all the AC21 numbers. The total number of approvals from 2001 to 2005 confirms the elaspe of AC21 numbers.

Therefore, it is obivious that DOS has not approved any EB2 cases from AC21 recaptured numbers, and diverted those numbers to EB3 or ther class, while there is a huge demand for EB2 numbers. I feel DOS has violated the Act. This is big blow to EB2 waiters.

Any one has second thought on it?
Click to expand...
Are those numbers for any particular country? I think there's a per country limit of visas, and high demand for EB2 from these particular countries gives an impression that there's really is high demand. in fact, rest of the world is current. The reasons for not taking what's left of EB2 visa #s in "rest of the world" category and transfer them to retrogressed countries i don't know.
 
Demand for EB1

Hi GCStrat/Akela,

Now that we see a very clear bridge between 73K and 303K, and that your model breaks down the 303K by the 4 categories mentioned, I have a question for you.

Based on your model, what is the number of EB1 cases, who are awaiting filing of I-485 but have had their I-140's approved (as of when you did the analysis) ?

Secondly, where can they see retrogession dates move forward to in the near future, say couple of months...

Regards
 
michvin said:
Are those numbers for any particular country? I think there's a per country limit of visas, and high demand for EB2 from these particular countries gives an impression that there's really is high demand. in fact, rest of the world is current. The reasons for not taking what's left of EB2 visa #s in "rest of the world" category and transfer them to retrogressed countries i don't know.
Click to expand...
These numbers are total of all countries in EB2 catagory. It does not matter if IN/CH demands more in EB2 catagory. They should have approved more EB2 numbers from AC21 pool. They did not.

Your understaning is wrong. Per country limit is not applicaple in this case, becase of AC21 Law. (See below the DOS satement on country quota) If rest of the world demands like IN&CH, then the 7% rule prevail. Otherwise,
the remaining number int at catagory should be given to more demanding countries like IN & CH. In EB2 catagory, ROW has no demand at all. Only IN & CH is the major consumption of EB2 visa. Therefore, the remaing numbers in EB2 share from AC21 pool should have allotted to In&CH. They royally s***d EB2 folks in In & CH.

Here is the rule

The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap, meaning visa issuances to any single country may not exceed this figure. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however. The per-country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the visa numbers by applicants from only a few countries.
The AC21 removed the per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of such numbers available.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can Card,
I think they did satisfy all the IND and CH guys in EB-2 during 2004. The retrogression I think was more a guess (or a strategy, if you believe, to stop PERM approval from going ahead with GC while folks from same country, same category from 2001 waited), and they are advancing dates pretty fast. If the dates of EB-2 India/China indeed move fast then my assumption holds true, if they do not then what you say has happenned (and as I said, I have never seen USCIS not following law). Only future months will answer what has happenned. Remember, in it's entire history (even when there was no retrogression), not more than 40,000 EB-2 visa were granted.So maybe that's how much the demand is (yes high EB-1 foxes me, I dunno why 60,000 were approved, it should also have been around 40,000).
rgds,
 
Last edited by a moderator:
can_card,or akela can any one tell for eb-2 is there any chance for the dates to become current?my pd in jan 2006.how many years do i have to wait for my date to be current?
 
Hi akela,

can you predict from your model how many years it might take for EB2-niw cases those who filed in Sep. 2005?
 
akela said:
Can Card,
I think they did satisfy all the IND and CH guys in EB-2 during 2004. The retrogression I think was more a guess (or a strategy, if you believe, to stop PERM approval from going ahead with GC while folks from same country, same category from 2001 waited), and they are advancing dates pretty fast. If the dates of EB-2 India/China indeed move fast then my assumption holds true, if they do not then what you say has happenned (and as I said, I have never seen USCIS not following law). Only future months will answer what has happenned. Remember, in it's entire history (even when there was no retrogression), not more than 40,000 EB-2 visa were granted.So maybe that's how much the demand is (yes high EB-1 foxes me, I dunno why 60,000 were approved, it should also have been around 40,000).
rgds,
Click to expand...

Akela,

I strongly belief that , both CIS&DOS violated the allocation of visa numbers in FY 2005.
Here is my points.

1. DOS has been releasing visa numbers in any catagory, for any country based on rate of approval of 485s (to moniter the demand), not by the number of 140s or LC pending with CIS or DOL. Yesterday report also confirms that they are going to move the EB3 dates beyond April 2001, though 225K 245i cases still pending at DOL.

2. As you said till FY 2004, DOS have issued right numbers in EB1,2,3 catagories. It is also to be noted that DOS has not significantly used AC21 numbers from FY 2001 to FY 2004. DOS issued all the AC21 numbers in FY 2005 (about 100,000 additional numbers apart from the yearly quota of 140,000) Therfore , the violation was in FY 2005 only.

4. It is a simple calculation. Out of 240,000 visas they issued in FY 2005 only 43000 to EB2, compare to 117000 in EB3. On top of that, in last year, every visa bulliton they mentioned clearly that demand for EB2 numbers are more. DOS knew that EB2 demand is more. Then how come they issed only 43000 visas from a pool of 240,000 visas in single year, when additional 100000 visas were available (Note that Schudle A demand was less for their quota)?

5. On othe other hand as you said there is no demand for EB2 "in it's entire history (even when there was no retrogression), not more than 40,000 EB-2 visa were granted". Let us assume there is no demand for EB2. If there is no demand (as you said only 40000 EB2 per year), so, why they should impose severe retrogression for EB2 India and China by 5 years in Oct 2006 when fresh numbers released for FY 2006? Your logic is that, they do not want PERM guys go first. If so, it violates my first point (As per yesterday posting DOS does not care about pending cases at DOL)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
so you mean more visa no are going to eb-3?and less to eb-2?its really wierd that eb-2 retrogressed to 1999.any chances of they becoming current in near future as row for eb-2 remains current
 
That does fit with the information that we are seeing from last year. China and INDIA ACCOUNT FOR 75% OF eb2. Till now EB-1 and EB-2 were in lockstep. Last year EB-1 went ahead of EB-2 by 50% (first time in history). What is going on, I don't know, Can I venture that maybe because of globlisation, suddenly from 2004 onwards, more intercompany tranfarees or foreign nationals at higher level (and thus eligible for EB-1) are coming to US. Who knows what the reason is, but the fact is suddenly EB-1 was far higher in demand than EB-2. This year that's the case (comment from USCIS).
Since most of the EB-2 guys are from China and India and most of them are stuck in PBEC (NOT DBEC), no wonder EB-2 is not being consumed fast. In fact this is one good reason for PBEC to change their hair brained priority and start adjucating applications from 2001 and 2002 so that the visa is used up this FY. SO the lucky guys in EB-2 who get their LC approved this year would be very lucky...

I suspect the retrogression was not because they wanted to stop PERM ppl from filing, it was more to figure out whaere the back log was. They retrogressed hard and waited for oct and Nov 2005 to igure that out. Then after that they are moving dates fast. I think this is the real reason. It will be interesting whatever century PBEC starts adjucating cases, EB-2 will see lots of forward and backward movements (if they still cannot figure out what's going on).

rgds
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top