Outlook for FY2007

keep guessing. This game seems to be flavor of the biweekly discussions. For two weeks people guess and two weeks crib.

Problem is only for India. EB-3 row got affected by too many GC to India. This is what UN has been telling over and over again and even though lately he has become abrasive he has cold facts in favor of arguments. Once EB-3 ROW is current then spillover may help EB2 india and EB-3 India and Mexico.

As for legislative changes there won't be any so don't bother about those.

desi3933 said:
My guess is, for Nov 2006, the PD dates may move by
1 week for eb3 India/China
2 weeks for eb2 India/China
4 weeks for eb3 RoW

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and this ain't legal advice, its just my opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
bigbang2001 said:
keep guessing. This game seems to be flavor of the biweekly discussions. For two weeks people guess and two weeks crib.

Problem is only for India. EB-3 row got affected by too many GC to India. This is what UN has been telling over and over again and even though lately he has become abrasive he has cold facts in favor of arguments. Once EB-3 ROW is current then spillover may help EB2 india and EB-3 India and Mexico.

Probably you mean "affected by too many I-485 applications" instead of "affected by too many GC "

As for legislative changes there won't be any so don't bother about those.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and this ain't legal advice, its just my opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
desi3933 said:
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and this ain't legal advice, its just my opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I meant too many GC. Just take a look at statistics for last year and year before that. India got much more than the limit of 7%. This would have been OK as law is for oversubscribed countries getting the benefit. But as UN has been pointing out strategy seems to have changed for FY 2006 and days of "Current" seems too far away for EB2-2/EB-3 India. The statistics for 2006 would prove what UN is saying is correct but based on existing status it seems like India Eb-2 and EB-3 are in for long haul.
 
Un

Are you forgetting the visa recapture that resulted in about 100k or so visa number recaptures ? I think it was more than 100k.
 
unitednations said:
Immigrant visas? They were used up; which were eligible. A couple of years; uscis didn't come close to the quota but those visas were gone forever (something they tried to recapture last year but failed).

Even when one starts making assumptions, such as the average person may file a labor once they are here say in their fourth year on H-1 then there will be a timing difference between people coming on h-1 and priority dates for greencards.

People who got greencards would probably get it in their 5th or 6th year of H-1. Therefore, there will continue to be a build of of demand for people who came in 2001-2005 which will be seen over the next couple of years.

Looks like there should be some political lobbying from Indian Government - Does anyone have statistics of how much money is flowed from USA back to india versus the money generated by people who moved back or the jobs being outsourced to India.

That is; is there an economic study by Indian government whether there interests are better served to have its people in USA or back in India. If conclusion is that it is better for its interests to have people in USA then a pretty good argument could be made to Indian Government that they have a vested interest in intervening.

UN,
Indian government is busy doing all the vote bank poilitics, introduce reservations in the higher educational institutions etc.. Whenever I see these delays by USCIS, I am constantly consoled and reminded by the fact that how my own government made my life difficult by following reservations, age limits etc.. in a socialist environment and that way sending all the people seeking talented private jobs outside the country. Situation has not changed much. Seeking private job is not very much different from government job still.

If my country is right, why am I here in the first place ?. I could not believe the news I read few years back regarding Indian government asking US to increase H1s. What a pathetic request that was. IMHO, mammoth US economy is not effected by anyone from India, whatever is happening, is an advantage to India already. We like it we are here, no we are out.
 
unitednations said:
Thanks. I know very little of India/Pakistan/Sri Lanka. Mainly only the discussions I have with people on the boards and off-line.

Just trying to brain storm. I'm starting to feel bad. Although better for everyone as a whole to allow eb1/eb2 ROW unused visas to go to eb3 row at the sacrifice of India/China eb2 doesn't seem intuitively correct. I'm just trying to brainstorm to come up with valid/good reasons to change the current situation.

US law makers certainly know our plight for many years now. If anyone can change the curreent situation, it would be corporate lobbying, nowdays they are also quite happy with retrogression as they can find people with US experience wiling to work in their Indian centers because of immigration problems.
 
unitednations said:
Thanks. I know very little of India/Pakistan/Sri Lanka. Mainly only the discussions I have with people on the boards and off-line.

Just trying to brain storm. I'm starting to feel bad. Although better for everyone as a whole to allow eb1/eb2 ROW unused visas to go to eb3 row at the sacrifice of India/China eb2 doesn't seem intuitively correct. I'm just trying to brainstorm to come up with valid/good reasons to change the current situation.
The reality is EB3 demand is huge, it is beyond our imagination due to the fact that pendig 245 i cases in various stages, impact of 195,000 H1Bs for 4 years ect... If we count the atleast one dependents for each EB3 applicants, the retrogression will never end. EB RETROGERSSION IS HERE TO STAY LIKE FAMILY BASED SYSTEM, unless law changes (like SKIL/CIR) bill. The best thing is lobbying the law makers for the change. One has to admit/realize the EB3 numbers. Sacrifycing EB2/EB1 india/china will not only serve the purpose and also it is against the current INA. In fact, why they should sacrifice? An EB2 ROW guy completing entire GC process within 6 months in FY 2006 (ie starting from labor to 485 approval), due to PERM. Then why should an EB2 indian has to wait more than 3 years even if he his/her PD is in 2003 and current INA dont allow that kind of spillover? For a person with 2003 there was enough EB2 visas were available then, and it was not used and got wasted by not approving enough 485s.

My employer do not care if I am from India or Pakistan or Afganistan or any other national. They hired me for my skills. Why EB2 Indain has to be punished for 3 years, eventhough enough visa numbers avaliable in EB2 catagory, while EB2-ROW complets GC journey with in 6 months?. On top of that, issuing unused EB2 numbers to EB3-ROW is rediculas. Futherrmore, AC21 recaptured numbers (about 134,000 extra numbers recaptured from EB2 and EB1 pool) used to clear backlogs in EB3-ROW, IN,CH, Mexico not EB2 India. Again, theoritically those numbers belonds to higher catagory.
 
I do not know whether the laws are completely clear in this respect. But the fact that we have EB preferences means that EB1 worker has higher priority than EB2 than EB3. What message is the CIS sending by this? Einstein-like guy from India has to wait but some technician from ROW is welcome.

Neither the Indian government nor the Indian corporate interests are being hurt by people being stuck in retrogression because the latter are not going back en-masse.
There has been abuse by Indians of the system; (why is there PD set in EB1?)
Now they are at the receiving end. But the people to suffer the worst are those in non-software industries in EB2 and EB3 categories.
perm_lc said:
My employer do not care if I am from India or Pakistan or Afganistan or any other national. They hired me for my skills. Why EB2 Indain has to be punished for 3 years, eventhough enough visa numbers avaliable in EB2 catagory, while EB2-ROW complets GC journey with in 6 months?. On top of that, issuing unused EB2 numbers to EB3-ROW is rediculas. Futherrmore, AC21 recaptured numbers (about 134,000 extra numbers recaptured from EB2 and EB1 pool) used to clear backlogs in EB3-ROW, IN,CH, Mexico not EB2 India. Again, theoritically those numbers belonds to higher catagory.
 
Einstein was not Indian

tusharvk said:
I do not know whether the laws are completely clear in this respect. But the fact that we have EB preferences means that EB1 worker has higher priority than EB2 than EB3. What message is the CIS sending by this? Einstein-like guy from India has to wait but some technician from ROW is welcome.

Neither the Indian government nor the Indian corporate interests are being hurt by people being stuck in retrogression because the latter are not going back en-masse.
There has been abuse by Indians of the system; (why is there PD set in EB1?)
Now they are at the receiving end. But the people to suffer the worst are those in non-software industries in EB2 and EB3 categories.

Why do you think that EB1 have higher priority than EB2 and EB3?
The fact is that EB1 does not have to have Labor Certification for green card. The other fact is that unused EB1 goes to EB2 and unused EB2 goes to EB3, based on that EB3 has priority because gets unused EB1/EB2. It will never happen that unused EB3 goes to EB2 or EB1.

The system assumes that number EB1 exceptional individuals suppose to be significantly small in comparision with EB2/EB3. But I am pretty much sure that in 2006 nothing fell from EB1 to EB2. In 2005 number of EB1 was 50% higher than EB2.

EB2 is kind of strange category only quite a few people apply in EB2 from the ROW although they could, 60% of applicants EB2 category - 26K were from India and China in 2005 FY. Sometime it seems to me that EB2 was specifically created for India and China.

EB1 is separate category like EB2 and EB3. One of my friends got green card in EB1 category (it was in 1992) just for regular small computer article in the magazine. In 1992 the reference to that article was enough for him to get green card in EB1 category without LC.

Generally system of selection category to apply for green card is not perfect and it is for sure that some of EB1 green card people (whom I know) need to go back to school instead of getting priorities and privileges.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sfmars said:
Why do you think that EB1 have higher priority than EB2 and EB3?
The fact is that EB1 does not have to have Labor Certification for green card. The other fact is that unused EB1 goes to EB2 and unused EB2 goes to EB3, based on that EB3 has priority because gets unused EB1/EB2. It will never happen that unused EB3 goes to EB2 or EB1.

The system assumes that number EB1 exceptional individuals suppose to be significantly small in comparision with EB2/EB3. But I am pretty much sure that in 2006 nothing fell from EB1 to EB2. In 2005 number of EB1 was 50% higher than EB2.

EB2 is kind of strange category only quite a few people apply in EB2 from the ROW although they could, 60% of applicants EB2 category - 26K were from India and China in 2005 FY. Sometime it seems to me that EB2 was specifically created for India and China.

EB1 is separate category like EB2 and EB3. One of my friends got green card in EB1 category (it was in 1992) just for regular small computer article in the magazine. In 1992 the reference to that article was enough for him to get green card in EB1 category without LC.

Generally system of selection category to apply for green card is not perfect and it is for sure that some of EB1 green card people (whom I know) need to go back to school instead of getting priorities and privileges.

I too feel certain extend, particularly EB1-multinational execuives are most abused catagory, like L1. L1 is the short-cut to overcome H1b visa shortage.
 
well, I am talking about the fact that it is tougher to qualify for Eb1 than Eb2 than Eb3.
My first impression was that for EB1 one needs to be Einstein-like; not so anymore, because multinational execs on L1A also fall into this category. The abuse in the latter category is the reason why there is a pd set in EB1 for IN.
Nevertheless, your perspective about spillover from EB1->EB2->EB3 suggesting that EB3 has the highest priority is interesting.
sfmars said:
Why do you think that EB1 have higher priority than EB2 and EB3?
The fact is that EB1 does not have to have Labor Certification for green card. The other fact is that unused EB1 goes to EB2 and unused EB2 goes to EB3, based on that EB3 has priority because gets unused EB1/EB2. It will never happen that unused EB3 goes to EB2 or EB1.

The system assumes that number EB1 exceptional individuals suppose to be significantly small in comparision with EB2/EB3. But I am pretty much sure that in 2006 nothing fell from EB1 to EB2. In 2005 number of EB1 was 50% higher than EB2.



Generally system of selection category to apply for green card is not perfect and it is for sure that some of EB1 green card people (whom I know) need to go back to school instead of getting priorities and privileges.
 
Shusterman's report

Below is a cut-and-paste from Shusterman's report. This doesn't look very promising.


2. Retrogression Expected to Get Worse Before It Gets Better
As recently as December 2004, all employment-based (EB) categories for permanent residence were "current". That is, there were no backlogs.
That all started to change in January 2005 when the EB-3 category (professionals and skilled workers) backlogged three years. These backlogs are referred to as the "retrogression".

The retrogression has gradually gotten worse during the past 21 months. The October 2006 State Department Visa Bulletin reveals that the EB-3 category has now retrogressed almost 4 1/2 years. The backlogs are even greater for persons born in India and Mexico. Even the EB-2 category for advanced-degreed professionals has backlogged for persons born in India and China. See


http://shusterman.com/vb.html

In the absence of congressional action, the retrogression will get worse, probably a lot worse, before it gets better. Why?
In May 2005, President Bush, recognizing the tremendous shortage of nurses and therapists, signed a bill which "recaptured" 50,000 immigrant visas for Schedule A professionals, primarily registered nurses, physical therapists and their family members. By the end of this month, all 50,000 visas will be used up. What will happen to RNs and PTs who are still in line for green cards and those who will apply for permanent residence in the future? They will be added to the EB-3 backlog which will result in increased waiting times, perhaps to five years or more.

The total number of persons who are permitted to obtain permanent residence each year in the employment-based categories is only 140,000. Adding another 30,000 - 50,000 to the current backlogs will certainly make the retrogression more severe.

Even more problematic are the 300,000+ applications for labor certification currently pending in the Labor Department's (DOL's) Backlog Elimination Centers. DOL has pledged to take action on each of these applications within the next 18 months. Even if only 200,000 of these applications are ultimately approved, if 50% of the applicants have a spouse and one child, the number of green cards needed to accommodate them would total 300,000. This is more than double the annual cap on EB green cards. Therefore, this has the potential to make the EB-2 and EB-3 numbers regress another two years.

Finally, present laws contain hard per-country caps. This means that countries like India and China which have populations of over one billion persons each have exactly the same quotas as Monaco and Mauritius, two tiny countries which supply the U.S. with virtually no immigrants. Given that most H-1B professionals are born in India and China, the per-country quotas will exaggerate the retrogression for persons born in these countries.

If high-skilled immigrants could only come to U.S. or remain in their own countries, our country could afford to continue this backward, "Let them eat Chicken McNuggets!" approach. But various European countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Persian Gulf countries are all competing for these talented individuals. Even Germany, the great bastion for engineers is seeing the number of German students studying engineering fall precipitously.

It is in our national interest to make our country the principal destination for computer professionals and scientists, for nurses, teachers and therapists, and for businessmen and physicians from all over the world.

The Senate immigration bill (S.2611) would have greatly expanded both the outdated employment and family-based immigration systems and eased the per-country limitations. Unfortunately, House Republicans, worried that they might lose their majority in the mid-term elections, refused to negotiate a compromise bill with the Senate.

Perhaps, in the "lame duck" session of Congress which will occur after the November elections, reason will prevail and Congress will pass amendments to fix our legal immigration system.

But just in case, be sure to keep the heat on members of Congress, and perhaps, they will see the light.

Use CapWiz to e-mail your representatives. You can find CapWiz at the bottom of our homepage at


http://shusterman.com

by entering your zip code in the icon entitled "Write to Congress" and clicking the "Go" button.
As one of our founding fathers famously stated: "We must all hang together or surely we will hang separately!"
 
is it certain that the EB1/2 spillover is going to EB3 ROW ?

Is it certain that EB1/2 spillover is going to EB3 ROW before EB1/2 oversubscribed ( IN/CH ) ?

There is reason to believe that it might not be the case.

If you look at EB1 it was retrogressed, and towards the end of the year
suddenly became CURRENT. That might indicate that the EB1 spillover from
ROW went to EB1 india.

When exactly does the spillover happen, every 3rd month ( last month of the quarter) ? or is it taken in to account when they advance the dates monthly ?

EB2 / Jul 2003 PD
 
I think many folks are still looking at the scenario EB1 Row -> EB1 Retro > EB2 Row -> EB2 Retro -> EB3 Row -> EB3 Retro. We should in fact consider EB as whole and not individual categories/countries when we talk to about spillover.

Taking the UN's words i.e., from Visa Bulletin, spill over can happen only if there is less demand on the whole, which is not the case. It is true that Retro countries are using all 7%, but when even EB3 ROW is retrogressed and it doesn't mean each (or many) country in ROW is also going above 7%. So, in order to compensate for this, the spill over numbers from EB1 and EB2 are going to fill this gap. Once ROW back log is gone, EB visas can go unused and DOS does spill over in order to prevent this. I am assuming, when ROW eventually becomes current, the horizontal spill over might begin and it follows the scenario above which we are all hoping it should have been (and complaining DOS is breaking law etc).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ina: Act 202 - Numerical Limitation To Any Single Foreign State

unitednations said:
According to DOS;

Spillover can only happen when there is less total cases pending as a whole for eb immigration then number of visas available.

If total cases/demand is greater then available greencards (150,000 or so) then there is no spillover to retrogressed countries.

It is a hard cap of 7% for India/china/mexico/phillipines. How come everyone ha a hard time believing department of state visa bulletin. Nobember 2005 they came out and said no more then 7% and they never changed that position afterwards.


“(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.

Like unitednations says:

All of the visas need to be current in order for the 7% cap to be ignored
 
andy garcia said:
“(A) EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS NOT SUBJECT TO PER COUNTRY LIMITATION IF ADDITIONAL VISAS AVAILABLE- If the total number of visas available under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 203(b) for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who may otherwise be issued such visas, the visas made available under that paragraph shall be issued [/COLOR] without regard to the numerical limitation under paragraph (2) of this subsection during the remainder of the calendar quarter.

Like unitednations says:

All of the visas need to be current in order for the 7% cap to be ignored


:) :) Everyone is reading the law to suit their interest..including UN. Even before introducing AC21 law as mentioned above, the removal of country quota was there in INA as per sec 202 a (1)(3). This section it self removes contry quota in EB&FB catagories. Then what is the need of introducing spacifically AC21 law? If you interpret the law as you guys interpret, (vertical flow of EB visas), then AC21 law is a reduntent law. There is no need for that law. Section 202 a(1)(3) itself covers that, as per your interpretation. AC21 celarly says "each paragraph". This means, country quota will not applicable in each preference catagory.

(2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants. - Subject to 1a/ paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 in any fiscal year may not exceed 7 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 2 percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.


(3) Exception if additional visas available. - If because of the application of paragraph (2) with respect to one or more foreign states or dependent areas, the total number of visas available under both subsections (a) and (b) of section 203 for a calendar quarter exceeds the number of qualified immigrants who otherwise may be issued such a visa, paragraph (2) shall not apply to visas made available to such states or areas during the remainder of such calendar quarter
 
7% limit is for EB+FB immigration. Assume that a country has pd set in all the eb and fb categories, obviously, 7% limit needs to be imposed on each individual category.
With EB1 current for India, spillover to EB2 and 3 categories is obvious. This obviously led to EB2 staying current longer than usual for India in FY05 because the 7% per-category limit did not apply. This may have also caused the 7% (EB+FB) limit to be exceeded as well.
In FY06, EB1 had pd set and thus every category of EB & FB preference for India could not go over 7%.
GCInThisLife said:
I think many folks are still looking at the scenario EB1 Row -> EB1 Retro > EB2 Row -> EB2 Retro -> EB3 Row -> EB3 Retro. We should in fact consider EB as whole and not individual categories/countries when we talk to about spillover.

Taking the UN's words i.e., from Visa Bulletin, spill over can happen only if there is less demand on the whole, which is not the case. It is true that Retro countries are using all 7%, but when even EB3 ROW is retrogressed and it doesn't mean each (or many) country in ROW is also going above 7%. So, in order to compensate for this, the spill over numbers from EB1 and EB2 are going to fill this gap. Once ROW back log is gone, EB visas can go unused and DOS does spill over in order to prevent this. I am assuming, when ROW eventually becomes current, the horizontal spill over might begin and it follows the scenario above which we are all hoping it should have been (and complaining DOS is breaking law etc).
 
perm_lc]

I do not necessarily agree with these rules. They were imposed by the US government.

From the November 05 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.
  • 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.

andy
 
I really wish it were (or is) the case, but we could also argue that till 2005 things were good for retro countries since there was less demand than numbers available or DOS didn't correctly establish 7% limit. However, I may still have hard time believing that India always gets its 7% 'share' of total EB (1, 2 and 3 together) and if EB1 doesn't get used, the numbers will be spilled to India EB2 & EB3 so that numbers will stay with India. 7% is just the max limit. May be spill over happens as we want/expect it to be - good for me :). We can speculate for any length, but we may get to know the real situation only after few months.

tusharvk said:
7% limit is for EB+FB immigration. Assume that a country has pd set in all the eb and fb categories, obviously, 7% limit needs to be imposed on each individual category.
With EB1 current for India, spillover to EB2 and 3 categories is obvious. This obviously led to EB2 staying current longer than usual for India in FY05 because the 7% per-category limit did not apply. This may have also caused the 7% (EB+FB) limit to be exceeded as well.
In FY06, EB1 had pd set and thus every category of EB & FB preference for India could not go over 7%.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top