gc_tx_2003
Registered Users (C)
Friends,
1) This is what I see in Oct 2006 bulletin.
2. Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320.
Now my question is, the per-country limit as indicated above seems to a pooled collection for both of family and employment based numbers.
So in reality the per-country limit is really 25, 620 and NOT sure if it is divided between Family and EB in the ratio of 226K and 140 K.
If infact it is a pooled collection, the assumption that 9800 for EB ( 1 , 2 and 3 ) per year is flawed.
Also, to disperse the 25620 visas for any single country, is the Q just between family and EB visas separately , or is it just one Q.
If it is just on Q, what it means is -- most of the family based visas are having an earlier priority date, and they pick up most of the visas of the
25620 visas allowed for a country. ? That might explain why the EB categories are stagnated.
Has anybody looked in to this closely ?
2) Also, How does the spillover exactly work ?
Is it
eb1 row --> Eb1 oversubscribed( IN, CH ) --> EB2 ROW --> EB2 ( IN, CH)oversubscribed --> EB3 ROW --> EB3 oversubscribed( IN, CH, MX,PH)
for the flow of unused visas in the EB1 and EB2 ROWs (OR)
eb1 row --> EB2 ROW --> EB3 ROW --> Eb1 oversubscribed( IN, CH )
-->EB2 (IN, CH)oversubscribed --> EB3 oversubscribed( IN, CH, MX,PH)
In the second case the numbers will not spill over to EB2 oversubscribed even thou EB1, EB1(IN,CH) and EB2 ROW have unused numbers, and instead will go to EB3 ROW. What this means is that an application for a EB3 ROW for a poultry worker presumably from let us say Elsavador, has the priority over a EB2 from china or India ?
Thanks,
Sathya
1) This is what I see in Oct 2006 bulletin.
2. Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320.
Now my question is, the per-country limit as indicated above seems to a pooled collection for both of family and employment based numbers.
So in reality the per-country limit is really 25, 620 and NOT sure if it is divided between Family and EB in the ratio of 226K and 140 K.
If infact it is a pooled collection, the assumption that 9800 for EB ( 1 , 2 and 3 ) per year is flawed.
Also, to disperse the 25620 visas for any single country, is the Q just between family and EB visas separately , or is it just one Q.
If it is just on Q, what it means is -- most of the family based visas are having an earlier priority date, and they pick up most of the visas of the
25620 visas allowed for a country. ? That might explain why the EB categories are stagnated.
Has anybody looked in to this closely ?
2) Also, How does the spillover exactly work ?
Is it
eb1 row --> Eb1 oversubscribed( IN, CH ) --> EB2 ROW --> EB2 ( IN, CH)oversubscribed --> EB3 ROW --> EB3 oversubscribed( IN, CH, MX,PH)
for the flow of unused visas in the EB1 and EB2 ROWs (OR)
eb1 row --> EB2 ROW --> EB3 ROW --> Eb1 oversubscribed( IN, CH )
-->EB2 (IN, CH)oversubscribed --> EB3 oversubscribed( IN, CH, MX,PH)
In the second case the numbers will not spill over to EB2 oversubscribed even thou EB1, EB1(IN,CH) and EB2 ROW have unused numbers, and instead will go to EB3 ROW. What this means is that an application for a EB3 ROW for a poultry worker presumably from let us say Elsavador, has the priority over a EB2 from china or India ?
Thanks,
Sathya