EB3-Word Wide Moved after 245 Cut-off date Except for Mexico/India

legitimacy of retro?

saras76 said:
GCStrat,

Your reasoning brings up very valid questions about the legitimacy of this whole retrogression. June's bulletin has just proved that the 245i fear is overblown for now and that the DOS and USCIS are playing games to further some inside agenda. The reasons maybe plentiful, it maybe process clean-up, lessening the load or buying time to implement new startegies. We will never know the truth behind this ridiculous retrogression that has been in effect for almost a year for EB3s.

regards,

saras
Click to expand...

Hi Saras,

The only thing that I can think of at this point in time, now that it seems apparent that 245(i) will not be an issue this year, is that USCIS/DOS are going to proceed in an orderly manner using FIFO rather than the randomness of years past. With pre-approval processing of I485 applications (and thus probably most cases that will become 'approvable' this year have already been worked and are just awaiting visa numbers) USCIS should be able to move forward over the next few months in some manner of logic, WITHOUT having a flood of new applications in at the same time (which would definitely happen if DOS moved the dates to 2004 for example).

One thing that struck me in reading various comments about this visa bulletin (on several attorney websites) is that they all state that EB-3 "only" moved 2 months. Not even one attorney has discussed the importance of crossing the 245(i) threshhold. That leads me to believe that DOS has said (perhaps to AILA?) that they will be moving EB-3 dates forward in an orderly fashion for the remainder of this fiscal year. As a result, I think most attorneys felt that the date would move more than 2 months and hence were surprised at the "only" 2 month move.

Just my thought... this will all be confirmed (or slammed in my face!) with the next visa bulletin.
 
100/7 ~ 14
So even if 14 countries sent the total no. of applicants for visa allocated for a fiscal year the quota will be over. After that doesn't matter what country you belong to. Only after the new quota is released you will get your turn. So a small country like Fiji etc. will get numbers in the next year quota that starts in October. Before that all countries will remain retrogressed for the whole year.

That is the reason why in EB-2 and EB-1 only India and China are retrogressed. Other countries simply don't send that many candidates in a fiscal year that the full quota gets over...
 
Hi, my attorney is a bigwig from AILA in this region and he told me that USCIS/DOS didn't tell AILA anything about the cut-off dates rationale. The only thing keeps saying is that his tons of 245(i) applications are still cooking at the DOL, therefore he says as far as he knows there is no logic that 245(i) applications are making this get stuck from now on. The only thing that we know for sure is that USCIS is focusing to get the backlog reduced.

That said, my speculation is that USCIS blocks people from filing new I-485 applications so that they have less new applications to worry about and at the same time can comply with the "6 months processing target". That said, there is no way to tell when these damn dates would advance to 2002.


"One thing that struck me in reading various comments about this visa bulletin (on several attorney websites) is that they all state that EB-3 "only" moved 2 months. Not even one attorney has discussed the importance of crossing the 245(i) threshhold. That leads me to believe that DOS has said (perhaps to AILA?) that they will be moving EB-3 dates forward in an orderly fashion for the remainder of this fiscal year. As a result, I think most attorneys felt that the date would move more than 2 months and hence were surprised at the "only" 2 month move.

Just my thought... this will all be confirmed (or slammed in my face!) with the next visa bulletin."
 
6 month processing agenda ..

marlon2006 said:
Hi, my attorney is a bigwig from AILA in this region and he told me that USCIS/DOS didn't tell AILA anything about the cut-off dates rationale. The only thing keeps saying is that his tons of 245(i) applications are still cooking at the DOL, therefore he says as far as he knows there is no logic that 245(i) applications are making this get stuck from now on. The only thing that we know for sure is that USCIS is focusing to get the backlog reduced.

That said, my speculation is that USCIS blocks people from filing new I-485 applications so that they have less new applications to worry about and at the same time can comply with the "6 months processing target". That said, there is no way to tell when these damn dates would advance to 2002.


"One thing that struck me in reading various comments about this visa bulletin (on several attorney websites) is that they all state that EB-3 "only" moved 2 months. Not even one attorney has discussed the importance of crossing the 245(i) threshhold. That leads me to believe that DOS has said (perhaps to AILA?) that they will be moving EB-3 dates forward in an orderly fashion for the remainder of this fiscal year. As a result, I think most attorneys felt that the date would move more than 2 months and hence were surprised at the "only" 2 month move.

Just my thought... this will all be confirmed (or slammed in my face!) with the next visa bulletin."
Click to expand...

marlon,

You are right. The most likely reason right now is the 6 month processing that they had promised to achieve by 06. In order to ensure that the 6 months processing window stays intact they are keeping their workload to a minimum through retrogression. I cannot think of any other reason. The next few bulletins are crucial for most of us because we do not want to get caught in the 245i storm (whenever that hits).

regards,

saras
 
interesting

I find the logic of 100/7 = 14 countries very interesting. Is USCIS really interpreting this way???

It basically means 14 countries can "crowd" out other countries. Hmmm, I did not know that USCIS worked this way.

It means smaller countries are at a disadvantage. The basic idea of 7% limit was to ensure no country dominates - but interpreting it this way makes 14 countries out of nearly 200 countries to dominate. Something is counter-intuitive.

We know out of these 14, four major countries are India, China, Mexico, Philipines.

Which leaves 10 or a few more countries to "Crowd" out others.

Are they Indonesia, Malayasia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Brazil, Russia, Germany, Nigeria, Japan and Vietnam (the most populous countries after China, India and USA)?

Somehow the 100/7=14 logic appears counter-intuitive.

Regards
GCStrat :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top