As far as I can tell, AC21 is not a permanent law. It had a sunset provision like the AC 21 law where they increased the H-1B numbers three fold few years back and at the end of the sunset provision the numbers reverted back to 65,000. I don't remember the exact date when it expired but AC 21 cannot be used anymore to recaputure the unused immigrant visas.
- Home
- Forums
- Immigrant Visas (Green Cards)
- I-485 Issues
- I-485 Issues Common to All Services Centers
- Visa Bulletin and Priority Dates Retrogression Iss
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
EB2 Unavailable
- Thread starter freezthefire
- Start date
indian_gc_ocean
Registered Users (C)
Thats what I am thinking as November 2005 visa bulletin says the following.ImmForum said:As far as I can tell, AC21 is not a permanent law. It had a sunset provision like the AC 21 law where they increased the H-1B numbers three fold few years back and at the end of the sunset provision the numbers reverted back to 65,000. I don't remember the exact date when it expired but AC 21 cannot be used anymore to recaputure the unused immigrant visas.
"During FY-2006, due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap."
Not sure if they took it out completely after October 2005 but my guess is they would invoke it again when DOS thinks that they have recaptured enough ROW EB3 visas. It could be FY2007 or FY2010.
You guys have total misunderstanding about AC21. AC21 modified or introduced certain provisions to the immigration & nationality act. Therefore it is a permanant change in the law. Only congress can change any provision in the AC21 law, by introducing another law. What has not happened so far is that, USCIS has not relaesed any final regulations (detailed explanation /procedural methods) to enforce the provisions in the law due to AC21.ImmForum said:As far as I can tell, AC21 is not a permanent law. It had a sunset provision like the AC 21 law where they increased the H-1B numbers three fold few years back and at the end of the sunset provision the numbers reverted back to 65,000. I don't remember the exact date when it expired but AC 21 cannot be used anymore to recaputure the unused immigrant visas.
indian_gc_ocean
Registered Users (C)
ok, then the notice in November 2005 was certainly towards retribution act for what happened to ROW eb3 in the past because of too many India eb3 visa allocations.perm_lc said:You guys have total misunderstanding about AC21. AC21 modified or introduced certain provisions to the immigration & nationality act. Therefore it is a permanant change in the law. Only congress can change any provision in the AC21 law, by introducing another law. What has not happened so far is that, USCIS has not relaesed any final regulations (detailed explanation /procedural methods) to enforce the provisions in the law due to AC21.
If this is true, India EB2/EB1 should survive in FY2007. If it is a law, still this does not explain why DOS made such an open statement in November 2005. Why should all these immigration attorneys keep quite about it.
We don't have to wait for statistics to find the eb2 numbers. Looking at the the way approvals have stopped after mid May in the approval threads, I am sure 2006 India eb2 will not cross 4,000 leave about 40,000. Huge number of people with 2002 PDs from CSC and TSC are still waiting for their approvals.
Last edited by a moderator:
AC21 did so many things in 2000. It temporarly incresed h1b quota, recaptured unused eb visas (one time), job change after 485 pending 6 months, removed country quota in eb visa allocation, if demand is less than supply etc... The job change during 485 pending, removal of country quota are permanant change.
The recaptured eb visas (more than 100,000) used to clear backlog in eb catagory. All the recaptured numbers used to clear backlog in eb3 catagory, though it was recaptured from eb2 and eb1 catagory in previous years. The sad part is that the extras visas had been available for four years, however USCIS did not process enough 485s to use all the visas till 2005. In 2005, they approved 242,000 485s and used all 100,000 extra ac21 visas. However, there is no rule or guidlines to DOS how to allocate unused extra visas. As, there is no specific guidelines/rules in AC21 how to allocate unused visas to clear backlogs, therefore it has cleared most of the India-Eb3, as it was most consuming country. In that contest, it is logic to allocated more numbers to India. However they totally ignored EB2 demand, though all the extra numbers came from eb2 & eb1 pool. In that logic eb3, (whether India or ROW)folks were lucky.
What DOS majorly violating now is, it is not quarterly basis calculating supply vs demand in EB2 catagory and not allocating unused visas to Indians at the end of every third month of the fiscal year. Why I am confidently saying that, in 2005, they issued 242,000 eb visas (140k regular+100k ac21 recaptured). Out of 242k pool, eb2 was just 44,000 only. It clearly indicates EB2 demand is very less. In fact it is less than EB1. In last year number of approval of EB1 were more than EB2. Furthermore, throughout 12 months in 2005, eb2 India were "current". Even, India and China were current entire year number of EB2 approved was 44,000 only. However in 2006, India was heavily retrogressed strarting from the year, while ROW was always "current". Therefore it is very logic to conclude that there is a big violation in the allocation of EB2 visas.
The recaptured eb visas (more than 100,000) used to clear backlog in eb catagory. All the recaptured numbers used to clear backlog in eb3 catagory, though it was recaptured from eb2 and eb1 catagory in previous years. The sad part is that the extras visas had been available for four years, however USCIS did not process enough 485s to use all the visas till 2005. In 2005, they approved 242,000 485s and used all 100,000 extra ac21 visas. However, there is no rule or guidlines to DOS how to allocate unused extra visas. As, there is no specific guidelines/rules in AC21 how to allocate unused visas to clear backlogs, therefore it has cleared most of the India-Eb3, as it was most consuming country. In that contest, it is logic to allocated more numbers to India. However they totally ignored EB2 demand, though all the extra numbers came from eb2 & eb1 pool. In that logic eb3, (whether India or ROW)folks were lucky.
What DOS majorly violating now is, it is not quarterly basis calculating supply vs demand in EB2 catagory and not allocating unused visas to Indians at the end of every third month of the fiscal year. Why I am confidently saying that, in 2005, they issued 242,000 eb visas (140k regular+100k ac21 recaptured). Out of 242k pool, eb2 was just 44,000 only. It clearly indicates EB2 demand is very less. In fact it is less than EB1. In last year number of approval of EB1 were more than EB2. Furthermore, throughout 12 months in 2005, eb2 India were "current". Even, India and China were current entire year number of EB2 approved was 44,000 only. However in 2006, India was heavily retrogressed strarting from the year, while ROW was always "current". Therefore it is very logic to conclude that there is a big violation in the allocation of EB2 visas.
Last edited by a moderator:
I understand your point. Most of the abusing done by IT consuling companies and misused the laws and created mess in the system. On top of that DOS/CIS mismanaged the system and made big mistakes in past. To cover up past mistakes, now they are doing other mistakes..
Regarding EB2, all my point is the demand never been high, till the peoples started filing EB2 LCs only after EB3 retrogressed later part of 2004. It is not logic, in sep 2005 EB2 India cutoff date were "current" and suddenly in oct 2005 it was 1999 when new numbers available. How can one justify that?
Regarding EB2, all my point is the demand never been high, till the peoples started filing EB2 LCs only after EB3 retrogressed later part of 2004. It is not logic, in sep 2005 EB2 India cutoff date were "current" and suddenly in oct 2005 it was 1999 when new numbers available. How can one justify that?
indian_gc_ocean
Registered Users (C)
unitednations said:perm lc; you seem to be quite upset.
First; uscis/dos can if they want only let countries go upto 7% and not allocate visas if they don't want to.
Only violation is if they go above 7% while other countries are retrogressed.
I must have missed the note earlier in the November 2005 bulletin. It is curious that they didn't put that little message in every bulletin. Therefore, is it safe to say they didn't implement it after that month and that is why the visa dates for eb2 went from 1998 to January 2003?
....
UN,
"During FY-2006, due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap."
The above note was published in October for November 2005 bulletin. Since October is the first month they gave a direction for the rest of the year 2006. It does not mean that they followed ac21 visa capure provisions after that month. There were hardly anyone from 98-end of 01 in India eb2. BEC started processing labors from May-June 2002 and they cleared these labors 2005 Jun-Sep. That is the reason EB2 India is stuck at Jun-Dec 2002 now. India EB2 prior to May 2002 were cleared before retrogresion as their labors were not cleared in BECs.
By not applying ac21 visa capture provisions, DOS has applied 7% quota for India eb2 in FY 2006. There is no doubt about it. We will have to wait and see how long they are going to do this.
Last edited by a moderator:
yimincanada88
Registered Users (C)
back up plan
apply for Canada GC as back-up plan
www.doityourselfcanada.com
Offical processing time is 9-12 months, a lot of people got it in 6 months. All you risk is application fee.
apply for Canada GC as back-up plan
www.doityourselfcanada.com
Offical processing time is 9-12 months, a lot of people got it in 6 months. All you risk is application fee.
I did not see any change so far
Hi Madgu-gc2005,
Yes we are almost same, including the approvals. But so far mine not transferred to NSC. I am not sure what is going on.
I am also collecting documents to apply for EB1. Did you do it by DIY.
My EB2 was done through a lawyer, but this timeEB1 I will do it myself. so, can I contact you for any doubts while preparing the package.
I am sending my email id as a personal mail to you.
Thanks and I will get in touch if any LUD comes.
madgu-gc2005 said:Hi Good_y,
Your case is almost like mine as for as filing is concerned. see below my signature. My I-485 has been transferred to NSC on July 13, 2006. Be in touch and post if there is any approval from your side. Do you know whether your security check including name check is over.
Hi Madgu-gc2005,
Yes we are almost same, including the approvals. But so far mine not transferred to NSC. I am not sure what is going on.
I am also collecting documents to apply for EB1. Did you do it by DIY.
My EB2 was done through a lawyer, but this timeEB1 I will do it myself. so, can I contact you for any doubts while preparing the package.
I am sending my email id as a personal mail to you.
Thanks and I will get in touch if any LUD comes.
stucklabor
Registered Users (C)
This is the thousandth time that I am posting this.
USCIS, by law, does not have a choice in assigning overflow EB2 numbers. By law, excess EB2 numbers if any will go only to EB2 oversubscribed countries.
The bulletin from Nov 2005 that everyone is quoting isn't USCIS' choice either. They may be applying a strict 7% country quota since they anticipate using up all the EB2 numbers.
Now at the end of all this, if they end up wasting EB2 numbers while holding EB2 India unavailable, then that is negligence.
USCIS, by law, does not have a choice in assigning overflow EB2 numbers. By law, excess EB2 numbers if any will go only to EB2 oversubscribed countries.
The bulletin from Nov 2005 that everyone is quoting isn't USCIS' choice either. They may be applying a strict 7% country quota since they anticipate using up all the EB2 numbers.
Now at the end of all this, if they end up wasting EB2 numbers while holding EB2 India unavailable, then that is negligence.
with all categories except IN & CH being current, ~70% numbers are available atleast for the last quarter even if I assume that all the EB2 numbers in the prior quarters are used up.
where is the anticipated demand from ROW EB2 coming from? EB2-ROW-PERM?
where is the anticipated demand from ROW EB2 coming from? EB2-ROW-PERM?
stucklabor said:This is the thousandth time that I am posting this.
USCIS, by law, does not have a choice in assigning overflow EB2 numbers. By law, excess EB2 numbers if any will go only to EB2 oversubscribed countries.
The bulletin from Nov 2005 that everyone is quoting isn't USCIS' choice either. They may be applying a strict 7% country quota since they anticipate using up all the EB2 numbers.
Now at the end of all this, if they end up wasting EB2 numbers while holding EB2 India unavailable, then that is negligence.
indian_gc_ocean
Registered Users (C)
stucklabor said:This is the thousandth time that I am posting this.
USCIS, by law, does not have a choice in assigning overflow EB2 numbers. By law, excess EB2 numbers if any will go only to EB2 oversubscribed countries.
The bulletin from Nov 2005 that everyone is quoting isn't USCIS' choice either. They may be applying a strict 7% country quota since they anticipate using up all the EB2 numbers.
Now at the end of all this, if they end up wasting EB2 numbers while holding EB2 India unavailable, then that is negligence.
The following is from same visa bulletin,
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.
In recent years, the application of the rules outlined in AC21 has allowed countries such as China – mainland born, India, and the Philippines to utilize large amounts of employment numbers which would have otherwise gone unused.
During FY-2006, due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap. It is anticipated that the addition of unused FY-2005 Family numbers and the remaining AC21 numbers to the 140,000 annual minimum will result in an FY-2006 annual Employment limit of 152,000. This will mean an Employment per-country limit for FY-2006 of approximately 10,650.
To illustrate the effect of the reduced per-county limitation during FY-2006 on the oversubscribed countries, it should be noted that during FY-2005 India used approximately 47,175 Employment numbers.
Look at the catch in the applying AC21. My understanding is "overall applicant demand for Employment-based visa numbers" will not be less than available as ROW eb3 retrogressed. By "overall", I understand all the categories added together.
ROW eb1 and eb2 are going to ROW eb3 at the end of the year they are not going wasted. DOS is working on per country limit again like prior to July 2001. DOS is not working on per category basis anymore. Thats the reason they repeatedly mention per country limit. India eb2 limit is 10,650/3 = 3550/year.
stucklabor
Registered Users (C)
tusharvk said:with all categories except IN & CH being current, ~70% numbers are available atleast for the last quarter even if I assume that all the EB2 numbers in the prior quarters are used up.
where is the anticipated demand from ROW EB2 coming from? EB2-ROW-PERM?
I have no idea where the demand is coming from. I know 44K EB2s were approved last year and that is just about one year's quota. Now it is possible that in the course of EB2 being current all of last year, USCIS may have RECEIVED a lot of EB2 applications in the last quarter that led to the retrogression this year.
Everyone is talking about DOS statement in Nov2005 VB. "During FY-2006, due to anticipated heavy demand, the AC21 provisions are not expected to apply, and the amount of Employment numbers available to any single country will be subject to the 7% cap"
This is simply a anticipation, and it may be true to EB3. However, it is not the fact. As stucklabor said the law is different. DOS cannot do something based on anticipcation, they suppose to allocate visa based on law. At the end of every three months they should have issued unused visas by ROW-EB2, if any, to EB2 India and China.
This is simply a anticipation, and it may be true to EB3. However, it is not the fact. As stucklabor said the law is different. DOS cannot do something based on anticipcation, they suppose to allocate visa based on law. At the end of every three months they should have issued unused visas by ROW-EB2, if any, to EB2 India and China.
Last edited by a moderator:
madgu-gc2005
Registered Users (C)
good_y said:Hi Madgu-gc2005,
Yes we are almost same, including the approvals. But so far mine not transferred to NSC. I am not sure what is going on.
I am also collecting documents to apply for EB1. Did you do it by DIY.
My EB2 was done through a lawyer, but this timeEB1 I will do it myself. so, can I contact you for any doubts while preparing the package.
I am sending my email id as a personal mail to you.
Thanks and I will get in touch if any LUD comes.
I got your PM. I went through the attorney who filed my EB-2 NIW. I was thinking initially to do myself but I did not want to take chance. So my attorney did everything. I did because I am missing very many opportunities (company jobs). I am working in the university.
indian_gc_ocean
Registered Users (C)
Yes, we will not know the magnitude of labors now. I follow various threads on 485 approvals and labors. From these forums and from the past visa bulletins it appears that we are working on pre July 2001 country quota situation.unitednations said:I hate to say this but if USCIS/DOS did to this then I'm not feeling bad about it. If it is a way for them to get rid of retrogression early by giving eb3 ROW the unused eb2 Row and eb1 ROW and temporarily sacrificing India for the greater good of everyone then so be it.
I don't know if everyone gets the magnitude of how many people from India are going for the greencard. Every single Indian male gets married to someone from India and adds them to the greencard process. It doubles the count. In Edison/Metuchen there is a consulting company every second office building. There is a massive amount of Indians going for greencards in every category.
I talk to a lot of people and know quite well when labors are getting approved. If they did only approve 2,800 visas in eb2 and it went from 1998 to January 2003 then it would be very difficult for me to believe. The shear magnitude of how many labors/people are out there is mind boggling.
I only hope that we understand the situation and have the toughness to face the reality by not being too optimistic, after that its upto everyone to inteprete the law as they like. Thanks for your help in sharing knowledge with patience.
But then what is the point of having EB categories? Isn't it to say that an EB1 (no matter from which country they are from) is considered more valuable for this country's economy than EB3? EB1,2 labors are harder to be approved than EB3.
unitednations said:I hate to say this but if USCIS/DOS did to this then I'm not feeling bad about it. If it is a way for them to get rid of retrogression early by giving eb3 ROW the unused eb2 Row and eb1 ROW and temporarily sacrificing India for the greater good of everyone then so be it.
I don't know if everyone gets the magnitude of how many people from India are going for the greencard. Every single Indian male gets married to someone from India and adds them to the greencard process. It doubles the count. In Edison/Metuchen there is a consulting company every second office building. There is a massive amount of Indians going for greencards in every category.
I talk to a lot of people and know quite well when labors are getting approved. If they did only approve 2,800 visas in eb2 and it went from 1998 to January 2003 then it would be very difficult for me to believe. The shear magnitude of how many labors/people are out there is mind boggling.
may I digress a bit?
I can understand EB3 & EB2 being manipulations. claim req of BS+5 and have labor in EB2.
Still do not understand EB2-NIW and EB1 being manipulations of the immigration system. maybe DOS should go easy on those.
I can understand EB3 & EB2 being manipulations. claim req of BS+5 and have labor in EB2.
Still do not understand EB2-NIW and EB1 being manipulations of the immigration system. maybe DOS should go easy on those.
unitednations said:I think the categories make sense in a certain way. However, diversification is still an issue.
They don't want certain countries dominating. Especially people from certain countries who have figured out how to run around the immigration system.
indian_gc_ocean
Registered Users (C)
I too don't understand that manipulation. But as far as I know EB2 or EB1 does not make a difference when you don't get any inflow from other countries. Why do you think DOS announced in August 2006 visa bulletin that India EB1 would be retrogressed ?tusharvk said:may I digress a bit?
I can understand EB3 & EB2 being manipulations. claim req of BS+5 and have labor in EB2.
Still do not understand EB2-NIW and EB1 being manipulations of the immigration system. maybe DOS should go easy on those.
As UN pointed out, to beat around the system, many guys filed EB1 in september 2005 as it was difficult to get a suitable labor sub at the last minute. How many ?, sites like murthy.com and others talk about how many EB1s they filed in September 2005 alone, thousands. EB2 atleast requires a labor, EB1 does not. IMHO, better stay with EB2 if your PD is around 2002/2003. EB1 may be scrutinized more in future.
this is probably true.
I think retro is deserved and well earned by a few countries.
but where are the checks and balances in the system?
I think retro is deserved and well earned by a few countries.
but where are the checks and balances in the system?
unitednations said:Just another note: You guys just do not understand the scope of how many people/lawyers/companies game the immigration system. Previous posting was such an example.
The L-1 in EB1 category is probably the most abused. The purpose behind it is to transfer multi national executive for companies like HSBC, Sony, etc. It is not for people to open up offices here in USA and then sponsor their fellow countrymen and have no americans working at the company and then file through eb1.