If.....
- Thread starter vghc
- Start date
It makes complete sense to anyone who looks at the complete picture : number of temporary EB visas issued each year; the break up of those visas by country etc..
But the problem is, such straightforward issue was not raised when the per country quota was being set as a law. Now that the law is set, to change it is a huuuge issue. No one wants to touch it in the election year. The politicians who can make the change will only offer lip service to the immigration issues until after the elections. They will only dangle some carrots to get additional votes.
But the problem is, such straightforward issue was not raised when the per country quota was being set as a law. Now that the law is set, to change it is a huuuge issue. No one wants to touch it in the election year. The politicians who can make the change will only offer lip service to the immigration issues until after the elections. They will only dangle some carrots to get additional votes.
If India and China takes about 60-70% of the entire H1-B numbers, should it not makes sense(i know, i know, nothing makes sense) that the numbers of Greencard available to EB3 world be sufficient to cover that category?
On top of what you said, if you compare India EB2 and ROW EB3 @ trackitt.com for this fiscal year you will find that fewer ROW EB3 have been approved than India EB2. If you keep in mind the estimate from the latest bulletin about the India EB2 quota status you'll probably come to conclusion that ROW EB3 is more retrogressed than it should have been.
The same happened last year and resulted in spillover to India EB2 and EB3 near the end of the year, when all the categories were made current. Which is certainly better than what the alternative was at that point (may/june 2007) - wasting 30-40K visas.
december2002
Registered Users (C)
According to Trackitt, you'll see only 3 EB3 ROW cases approved in November and 5 EB3 from India. However in the same month 95 EB2 cases from India were approved. Obviously not everyone list their cases with Trackitt but it is big enough to use it as a sample pool and the numbers show there is not much demand for visa numbers for EB3 (India or ROW) . There are no more cases to come from backlog centers and no more labor substitution so what is the point of holding EB3 that back!
Last edited by a moderator:
I am trying to understand OP's point. The thought is that if In\CHI makes up for 2/3rds of H1B visas, ROW EB should be more than what it is today?
Shouldn't it be the other way around?
One can refer to uscis report published (for 07 it will be available in Jan'08) to quantify visa allocation by categories and country. I do not know about trackitt and have never updated my case on that site. So there could be several who haven't done this either. Therefore, trackitt may not give us a true measure of visa allocation by countries.
Shouldn't it be the other way around?
One can refer to uscis report published (for 07 it will be available in Jan'08) to quantify visa allocation by categories and country. I do not know about trackitt and have never updated my case on that site. So there could be several who haven't done this either. Therefore, trackitt may not give us a true measure of visa allocation by countries.
Which part confuses you? There is a per-country cap on EB that does not exist on H1B. If India's share of H1B is larger than its EB cap in % it will be retrogressed more than ROW.
According to government report more than 60K visas were used during the last three months of FY2007, when the cut off date was first moved and then completely removed. It is all but certain that non-ROW countries have used more than the prescribed %.
Now, if UN's analysis was correct, the fact that all categories were current might make the spillover legal since the country quotas kick in when there is retrogression. It is not likely that anyone will pull a legal gun because of it, anyway.
According to government report more than 60K visas were used during the last three months of FY2007, when the cut off date was first moved and then completely removed. It is all but certain that non-ROW countries have used more than the prescribed %.
Now, if UN's analysis was correct, the fact that all categories were current might make the spillover legal since the country quotas kick in when there is retrogression. It is not likely that anyone will pull a legal gun because of it, anyway.
As alexberg said, there is no way a country say like Britain,Singapore or New Zealand would take up that many EB Greencards based upon per country quota allocated. Whats even worst, there is no way such countries would retrogressed back to 02. I just don't see how EB World can retrogress that far. Unless of course the country quota law is not implemented. Which means, India or China has taken more than its share of the EB Greencards.
I see the point you are trying to make here. If majority EB GC applicants are originally here on h1b and further 2/3rd of h1b are used by in\chi then how is eb3 row more retrogressed. This is right about the majority. I do not know that there aren't any from row in 245fi. They wouldn't be on h1b right?
I also think that this is not a quota but a per country cap. USCIS will publish their report on visa consumption by countries; then things will become clearer.
I am not disregarding the possibility that per-country cap may have been crossed for 07 in the mad rush to utilize all the numbers.
I also think that this is not a quota but a per country cap. USCIS will publish their report on visa consumption by countries; then things will become clearer.
I am not disregarding the possibility that per-country cap may have been crossed for 07 in the mad rush to utilize all the numbers.